Request for Centaur Correction

[Colen]

Lawful_g wrote:
>
>
> Well, while I'm at it, I noticed something else. Weapon specialization
> should have weapon focus in the same weapon as a pre-requisite.
> Currently it is only dependant on fighter level 4th and so may be
> selected without having weapon focus at all.


The requirement is enforced when you actually select the weapon - if you
selected Weapon Specialization for a weapon that didn't have weapon
focus, you would get a validation error.

It isn't enforced because there are other ways you can get weapon focus
without taking the weapon focus feat - for example, a War cleric's
"Favored Weapon Focus", which Hero Lab tracks as a different feat.

[Lawful_g]

I have interpreted "grants a +3 competence bonus on the wearer's Charisma-based checks" as applying the bonus to all skills based on Charisma only, but I think an argument could be made for it also applying to flat charisma checks (like when trying to convince a charmed creature to do something it wouldn't normally) or turning checks.

It might be best just to have it add the bonuses to Charisma based skill checks and leave the other effects up to the DM. After All, Hero Lab doesn't have a field for "turning check modifier" that I know of, so there is nothing to affect there.

[Colen]

Lawful_g wrote:
>
>
> Aw damnit. One more thing. Monstrous humanoid levels are still not
> providing appropriate weapon and armor proficiencies for many creatures.
> I will list the monstrous races who ARE getting them here: Lizardfolk,
> Minotaur, Hill Giant, Ogre, Ogre (Merrow), Rashasa, Troglodyte.
>
> Satyrs are getting a racial bonus feat of alertness as well. The
> remaining races are not getting any weapon or armor proficiencies from
> thier monstrous humanoid levels. According to the monster manual entry
> for monstrous humanoids, all monstrous humanoids are proficient in
> simple weapons and any weapons listed in thier descriptions.
>
> This means that Centaurs should have Simple, Longsword and Longbow
> proficiency, and Ogre magi should have simple, greatsword and longbow
> proficiency, so on and so forth. This will probably entail creating a
> rule for each race similar to the one that allows elves to get
> profieciency in a few specific weapons


I don't believe that this is the case. For a monster, yeah, those are
the weapon proficiencies it should have. But for a character, I don't
think so. Here's why:


1) Look at the Gnome entry:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/gnome.htm

Gnomes are listed there as using Longswords and Light Crossbows. By the
rules for "monsters", those gnomes should get proficiency with Simple
weapons, Longswords and Light Crossbows. But when you choose to be a
gnome player, you don't get those proficiencies.


2) Look at the Hill Giant entry:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/giant.htm#hillGiant

According to the general rules for Giants, Hill Giants should be
"Proficient with all simple and martial weapons, as well as any natural
weapons." However, the entry in "Hill Giants as Characters" explicitly says:

"Weapon and Armor Proficiency: A hill giant is automatically proficient
with simple weapons, martial weapons, light and medium armor, and shields."

Why restate that just for Hill Giants and only a handful of other
monsters? It makes more sense if "Monsters" get the listed proficiencies
by type, and it "Characters" just get them from their class levels.


Thoughts? One thing I will do is add an Adjustment that allows you to
become proficient with a class of weapons that you wouldn't normally
get. So if in your campaign your DM says "OK Sorcerers are proficient
with all Martial weapons" or if you want to use another interpretation
of the monster proficiencies rules you can do so.


Thanks.

[Colen]

Lawful_g wrote:
>
>
> I have interpreted "grants a +3 competence bonus on the wearer's
> Charisma-based checks" as applying the bonus to all skills based on
> Charisma only, but I think an argument could be made for it also
> applying to flat charisma checks (like when trying to convince a charmed
> creature to do something it wouldn't normally) or turning checks.
>
> It might be best just to have it add the bonuses to Charisma based skill
> checks and leave the other effects up to the DM. After All, Hero Lab
> doesn't have a field for "turning check modifier" that I know of, so
> there is nothing to affect there.


According to the documentation for Competence Bonuses
(http://www.d20srd.org/srd/theBasics....etenceModifier), a
competence bonus "does not apply on ability checks, damage rolls,
initiative checks, or other rolls that aren't related to a character's
level or skill ranks." So I think you're right that it should affect
Charisma-based skill checks and not a lot else.

So it shall be done!

Thanks.

[Lawful_g]

1) Gnomes are humanoids with 1 hit die, so according to pg 310 of MM under the entry for Humanoid type, thier racial hit dice is replaced by the class level they take. The gnomes you site are 1st level warriors. It specifically says creatures with more than 1 racial Hit die do not have thier hit dice replaced by class levels and so I believe they are entitled to weapon/armor prof based on thier type.

2) In the MM glossary the description of each type (including giant) has a sentance stating that creatures of that type have the following traits (unless otherwise noted in the creature's entry). In each of the MM creatures with more than 1 HD that have entries for thier being used as characters most do not list anything for weapon and armor proficiencies. The majority of those who do list them seem to do so because they are giving exceptions to the normal rule. Monstrous HUmanoids normally get simple weapon prof, the Grimlock gets battle axe, Minotaur get Great Axe, and Lizardfolk get Shield prof even though they wear no armor. It seems to me that the large number of omitted entries plus these that cite exceptions to the general rule suggest that where not specified, creatures with racial HD use the weapon/armor prof mentioned in thier type.

I do admit that the Hill Giant that you cite and the Ogre (interestingly both Giant types) have listings that repeat exactly the same info in the giant type entry without showing an exception. I don't know why this is, perhaps it is an oversight by the compilers.

I still think that as the type entries say, follow the prof of the general type unless noted otherwise in the specific monster entry. Therefore, since an entry for armor/weapon proficiencies is absent under "centaurs as characters" it should default to the Monstrous Humanoid prof with simple weapons plus weapons mentioned in the entry (longsword and longbow). My friend's centaur character should not have zero ability to wield weapons just because he has yet to take his first class level, right? As it is his classless centaur character can't even pick up a stick and use it as a club according to Hero Lab.

Thank you for listening to my arguments and working to improve the program continually.

[Colen]

Lawful_g wrote:
>
>
> 1) Gnomes are humanoids with 1 hit die, so according to pg 310 of MM
> under the entry for Humanoid type, thier racial hit dice is replaced by
> the class level they take. The gnomes you site are 1st level warriors.
> It specifically says creatures with more than 1 racial Hit die do not
> have thier hit dice replaced by class levels and so I believe they are
> entitled to weapon/armor prof based on thier type.
>
> 2) In the MM glossary the description of each type (including giant) has
> a sentance stating that creatures of that type have the following traits
> (unless otherwise noted in the creature's entry). In each of the MM
> creatures with more than 1 HD that have entries for thier being used as
> characters most do not list anything for weapon and armor proficiencies.
> The majority of those who do list them seem to do so because they are
> giving exceptions to the normal rule. Monstrous HUmanoids normally get
> simple weapon prof, the Grimlock gets battle axe, Minotaur get Great
> Axe, and Lizardfolk get Shield prof even though they wear no armor. It
> seems to me that the large number of omitted entries plus these that
> cite exceptions to the general rule suggest that where not specified,
> creatures with racial HD use the weapon/armor prof mentioned in thier type.
>
> I do admit that the Hill Giant that you cite and the Ogre (interestingly
> both Giant types) have listings that repeat exactly the same info in the
> giant type entry without showing an exception. I don't know why this is,
> perhaps it is an oversight by the compilers.
>
> I still think that as the type entries say, follow the prof of the
> general type unless noted otherwise in the specific monster entry.
> Therefore, since an entry for armor/weapon proficiencies is absent under
> "centaurs as characters" it should default to the Monstrous Humanoid
> prof with simple weapons plus weapons mentioned in the entry (longsword
> and longbow). My friend's centaur character should not have zero ability
> to wield weapons just because he has yet to take his first class level,
> right? As it is his classless centaur character can't even pick up a
> stick and use it as a club according to Hero Lab.


If your friend takes a Centaur, isn't he allowed to pick his first class
level immediately (and thus getting his weapon proficiencies from that)?
Then he'd have to wait until level 8 (I think) to gain another class
level, because of level adjustments and so on.


Does anyone know of any errata or FAQ that clarifies the above issue? I
checked through the one I downloaded from the wizards site, but that
didn't help.


> Thank you for listening to my arguments and working to improve the
> program continually.


Thank you for contributing to the discussion! We're always trying to
make Hero Lab better, and the only way to do that is to talk to the
actual users.


--
Colen McAlister (colen@wolflair.com)
Chief Engineer, Lone Wolf Development
http://www.wolflair.com/

[Ravencloak]

If your friend takes a Centaur, isn't he allowed to pick his first class
level immediately (and thus getting his weapon proficiencies from that)?
Then he'd have to wait until level 8 (I think) to gain another class
level, because of level adjustments and so on.

This gets into the whole ECL/monster hit dice can of worms. The centaur has 4 racial hit dice and a +2 level adjustment. Because it has more than 1 racial hit die, its monster hit dice are treated as "monster levels."

From the SRD: "Effectively, monsters with a level adjustment become multiclass character when they take class levels. A creature’s “monster class” is always a favored class, and the creature never takes XP penalties for having it."

When a player chooses to play a centaur character, its ECL (effective character level) is 6, so as soon as it takes a class level it's treated as a 7th-level character. However, this is further complicated in that racial feats and skills are based solely on "monster class" hit dice. So, while the character would be treated as 7th level for play balance purposes, it is treated as "5th level" (4 racial levels + 1 character level) for purposes of feats and skill points (and maximum skill ranks).

I think the real misunderstanding here is that, according to the rules, no one should expect to play a centaur as a "1st level" character, i.e., when the rest of the players all have 1st-level humanoid characters. The guidelines (based on ECL) are that no one can play a centaur character until the rest of the party is at least 6th level. At that point, the centaur character could join the party as another 6th-level character (based on racial hit dice and level adjustment), without any levels in a standard character class. Or, the player could wait until the rest of the group are 7th level, and then bring in the centaur as a 1st-level bard.

So, I believe it is correct to give monstrous humanoids (and other "playable" races with more than one hit die) the weapon proficiencies listed under the definition of monstrous humanoids in the SRD along with proficiency in any weapons noted in their descriptions.

Why the folks at WotC chose to include that Weapon and Armor Proficiencies line for some creatures as characters, I have no idea. Then again, I've never been able to figure out their rationale for which races have a "XXX as Characters" entry and which don't.

[Colen]

Ravencloak wrote:

<snip useful analysis>

> So, I believe it is correct to give monstrous humanoids (and other
> "playable" races with more than one hit die) the weapon proficiencies
> listed under the definition of monstrous humanoids in the SRD along with
> proficiency in any weapons noted in their descriptions.
>
> Why the folks at WotC chose to include that Weapon and Armor
> Proficiencies line for some creatures as characters, I have no idea.
> Then again, I've never been able to figure out their rationale for which
> races have a "XXX as Characters" entry and which don't.


That all sounds fair. I'll see about getting it changed.


Thanks for your input!



--
Colen McAlister (colen@wolflair.com)
Chief Engineer, Lone Wolf Development
http://www.wolflair.com/

[Mathias]

Actually, I found the rule for weapon and armor proficiencies for monsters - its listed in the monster type descriptions - for example, the Centaur is a monstrous humanoid, and is therefore proficient with simple weapons, all weapons mentioned in its entry (longsword, longbow, lance), and all armors mentioned in its description (none)