DM Theory: Does Someone Really Have To Be a Cleric? Thoughts on party composition.

Does someone really always have to be a cleric?  Sometimes it’s a drag to always have a priest around.  What if everyone wants to be a wizard? Will they all just hide behind one another whenever danger appears? Or, God forbid, what if the entire party is a bunch of Fighters?  How will they ever win? D&D is not just a role playing game, but also a game of well defined roles among the party.  Each character meshes with those around him to form a perfect combination that is well suited to wreak havoc on their environment. Sort of like Voltron. But what if the players just make the characters that they want to make and some essential aspect of party cohesion gets over looked? Well, it’s certainly not the end of the world. And as a DM I actually really like when traditional class roles break down and the party is forced to be creative to circumvent a problem that is tailored for a class that they may not have.  Watching a group of Fighters try to deal with a locked door is generally a lot of fun.  Or some negotiating when no one has a Charisma above eight.

Since it’s inception, D&D has sort of had the iconic four character party as the ideal.  The brutish warrior, the sneaky and clever thief, the cleric that patches everything up and the aloof wizard that saves the day when everyone else is overmatched.  And that’s all well and good, but it gets old and can be boring.  And divvying up the treasure is always far too peaceful.  Whenever we are starting up a new game and it’s character creation day I do my best to encourage players to make the character that they want to play, not the one that they think that the party needs.  Realistically, these characters were born and raised totally independent of one another so it seems highly unlikely that a group of strangers will have perfectly complementary abilities and skills. It’s fine if two characters both have Knowledge (Nature), it’s a good skill.

I’m currently DMing for a group of five players that has a party composition that leaves plenty to be desired.  They consist of a ranger, fighter, barbarian, monk, and dragon shaman. You’ve probably noticed that they have no arcane magic, no divine magic, and really no thieving skills (the monk and ranger can sneak around, but they ain’t getting in places without the key). So what have I done to make sure that this party isn’t chewed up by a world that expects certain attributes from it’s adventurers? Nothing. I have done absolutely nothing differently to cater to them. Why would I? Just because none of them wanted to be a rogue, it doesn’t mean that everyone in town forgets to lock their doors.  Or that treasure hoards don’t have wands.  For me, it’s very enjoyable watching them try to figure out how to deal with a problem that could easily be solved if they had a different type of character with them.  A recent example of this is a locked metal box that the Ranger found in the cabin of a ship that they had stolen.  He had no way to open it and was afraid to bring it to a locksmith for fear that it would be recognized and he would be caught with stolen goods.  Instead, he held onto it for about seven adventures and waited until the Dragon Shaman could breathe acid and melt the lock.  Of course, he then had to split the treasure with the Dragon Shaman, but that’s the way it goes. Teamwork!

It’s also interesting to watch the party begin to evolve and understand what their strengths and weaknesses are, and then try to set up situations to take advantage of what they are good it and to also hide their deficiencies.  When they do it well (which, admittedly, doesn’t happen too often) it’s awesome to watch and rewarding for everyone involved. In a way it’s a very advanced form of gaming because they need to think slightly long term and not just about what is in front of them. In a traditional party the group can sort of walk into any scenario and feel confident that they have what is needed to handles things because they can do almost everything.  Not so with this group. 

The other upside here is that it seems to be more fun for the players since they get to be the character that they actually want to be.  I have noticed that there is a pretty noticeable lack of clerics in games that I run. That's sort of too bad.

Why I Hate Dungeons; or You Can't Spell Dungeon Without Dung

I have a confession to make. I probably shouldn’t admit this, but the truth of the matter is that I hate dungeons. Endless poorly lit corridors with random encounters, challenges that get tougher the deeper underground that you go. I want no part of it. Can not stand them. Probably the last place I want to take a group of adventurers. Please don’t take my d20 away for this. I can deal with some caves, an underground passage that leads somewhere interesting, and maybe even some mines if something halfway decent is going on in them and they don’t follow some sort of monotonous layout for hours. But a real dungeon filled with T intersections, wall sconces, and bags of rotted things? No thanks. I don’t see the fun of placing player characters into an environment that is so one sided and thoughtless. There just doesn’t seem to be much to do other than walk from room to room and kill whatever you find. And take the treasure after wiping the blood off of it. Right? Even the classic dungeon crawls in the annals of D&D bore me. Tomb of Horrors? Really, what the fuck is that supposed to be? That’s fun? Queen of the Demonweb Pits? Come on, look at that map! Aside from being absolute nonsense (granted, I realize that it does exist on some sort of plane of chaos…) it is nothing but an exercise in rolling dice and hoping that the ones you roll come out better than the ones that your opponents roll. And we’ll ignore the fact that Lolth lives on a weird pirate ship, I suspect that some people think there is something cool about that. I am not one of those people.

Perhaps if I understood the general ecology of the dungeon better I would appreciate them more. But as it stands, they really make no sense to me in terms of how they actually exist. Some of these fantasy dungeons really are very impressive feats of engineering; traps all over the place, incredible architecture, secret passages cleverly hidden into the stones of some well carved walls, enchanted statues that animate and kill people unless the proper words are spoken. This is some serious shit going on. But that’s actually the part that really infuriates me. You mean to tell me that the same evil genius lich that had the chutzpah to put this entire operation together, is the same dude that sits in a tiny alcove all day hoarding some fantastic magic items (but not actually using them) and doing nothing proactively to stop the adventurers that are rampaging through his lair and killing all his minions one by one? It just seems inconsistent. And none of these monsters are smart enough to decide, “Hey, maybe we should all work together to kill these guys before we are all slaughtered one at a time.” That never occurred to them? They would rather play a card game behind a closed door and wait until it gets kicked down and a horde of murdering lunatics storm into the area and annihilate them? It just seems to me that all of these danger filled dungeons exist solely to be a foil to adventurers. What if the adventurers never arrive? Did the dungeon really even exist? I understand that a lot of them have some sort of flimsy backstory to explain their existence, but I’m not buying it. I like realism in my fantasy!

The point of all of this is that I have been thinking a lot about urban settings in fantasy worlds, and mainly about how much I like them. It’s true that they are much more challenging to run from the DM/GM/ZM/Keeper/Referee standpoint because of all the options that are available to the players, but that’s what makes them come to life and feel like you are actually having an open adventure as opposed to a semi-scripted jaunt through a dungeon. There are only so many decisions that you make at an intersection. And the worst part is that a slog through a dungeon generally reduces a character to nothing more than their stat sheet, they are usually only worth whatever they bring to combat and trapfinding. Come on, let’s be honest. Dungeons are lame and lazy on the part of the DM. I don’t think I have ever seen players get real excited about the prospect of trekking through the subterranean darkness in the way that they light up when learning some juicy information from a well placed NPC or in slaughtering the adversary that had been hanging around town and taunting them. Towns and cities have structure and laws, whereas a dungeon really has neither of those things. Having laws, customs, and structure forces players to think about their actions and to balance risk versus reward, as opposed to operating inside of the pseudo vacuum that is the Dungeon of Evil Wizard. Who cares what you do in there? I guess that I am just at the point in my roleplaying career in which I have seen every monster, given out every piece of treasure, and watched players die in every sort of horrid manner that there is. I want more than that and I don’t think I will be finding it inside of a dungeon. I like creating and designing cities for PC’s to run through. Coming up with an unusual shopkeeper or a tavern with a weird theme is fun for me, finding ways to work interesting combat situations into an urban environment is a rewarding challenge. Generally I homebrew all of this stuff, but there are lots of sources that I have drawn on over the years for both inspiration and examples of how this information should run and look. I’ve talked about my love for the City of Greyhawk boxed set before, but over the next couple of posts I am going to look at some of the other urban fantasy sourcebooks that I have used in the past.

Top 5 Weirdest Charts in the DMG

Gary Gygax was nothing if not thorough.  Recently I revisited the 1^st Edition Dungeon Master’s Guide (Right up there with the Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract as the key books of my formative years) and I was blown away by the massive amount of charts and tables that occupy a substantial portion of the book’s 240 content crammed pages.  There seems to be a numerical representation of just about anything that one could imagine. Fortunately for us, Gygax thought of it first and saved us the headache about wondering on this stuff. Of course, the important stats like Attack Charts and Saving Throws are in there, but I am much more interested with some of the more odd content in there.  Has some of this stuff ever been used?  Was Gary trying to micromanage every game of D&D played around the world by having a hand in seemingly every event that occurred everywhere? Was he worried that some bizarre situation would arise and the DM would have no idea what to do? 

I went through the book and chose my favorites.  Here are the Top Five Weirdest Charts in the 1^st Edition DMG:

5) Type of Harlot. There is a section in the back of the book that contains numerous charts for randomly determining NPC’s that the party may come across in an urban setting. Okay, I’m with you here, there is some purpose to that and it could be fun.  A nighttime roll of 44-50 means the party has come across a Harlot! Sounds exciting!  The odd thing is that the Harlot roll further yields a secondary roll that goes into more detail for the specific type of harlot. (Along with Drunk it’s the only NPC type that gets a roll for more info. That’s odd. And telling.) Among the Harlot subtypes available for perusal are the Slovenly Trull, Brazen Strumpet, Saucy Tart, and Aged Madam. That’s quite a list! And I am also slightly suspicious of Mr. Gygax’s vast knowledge of the world’s oldest profession.  I guess adventurers need to do something to blow off steam after all those lethal dungeons crawls. 

4) Maximum Height of Opponent that Can be Stunned by a Monk.  The poor Monk, as if it’s d4 Hit Die and bizarre set of abilities isn’t rough enough (not to mention that at high levels Monks are required to fight one another to the death in order to keep advancing), now there is a set in stone guideline for how tall someone can be if they are going to be stunned.  Considering the types of giants and heavyweight monsters out there, it’s not all that good.  A monk needs to be 10^th level to stun someone that is 8 feet tall. Which pretty much includes any type of giant, troll, dragon, ogre, etc…

3)Spy Failure Table. I’m not sure I understand this section of the DMG at all.  There is a chart showing an Assassin’s chance to successfully spy on something based on level and difficulty.  But the better chart is the one that shows what happens to the spy if they fail.  If they are caught and a roll of 81-95 turns up the spy is caught with proof of their spying and then they are tortured.  This then leads to another chart that details the torturing of the worthless spy (1-2 dead, 3-4 reveals everything, 5-6 turncoat). Of course there is an additional note stating that if they spy was fanatical he will just kill himself instead.  I don’t know about any of this. Isn’t that an adventure? Shouldn’t all this stuff be roleplayed out? Where can I hire a fanatical spy?

2) Unexplained Sounds and Weird Noises.  This is located in the Dungeon Dressing section of the DMG, just some details to spice up an otherwise randomly built dungeon.  I do feel that this chart is a bit of an oxymoron.  I mean, the title says that they are Unexplained Sounds, but then it goes on to explain what they are.  Okay, let’s see how this works. 

DM: You are walking down the dimly lit stone passage and you hear a noise.

Player: (worried) What does the noise sound like?   

DM: (rolls dice) A gong. 

Player: What sort of gong?

At this point the DM would then consult the type of gong chart located on the next page.  I’m kidding about that, it’s actually located in the DMGII.

The entire Dungeon Dressing section is absolutely bizarre and remarkable in it’s thoroughness.  There is a chart that describes the Air Currents in the dungeons.  Yes, 15 different types of Air Currents are detailed including such diverse items as “Breeze, slight” and “Breeze, slight, damp”. 

1)Damage Taken by Lycanthropes During Transformation Due to Armor Worn.  Wow.  I don’t know what to say about this.  Does it matter? Does a DM really need to consult a chart for this? Is it important to know that a were-tiger will take 2-5 points of damage if they are wearing splint mail when they begin to transform? I really hope that somewhere in the long annals of D&D a character has died from this damage.  That would be the ultimate tribute to Gygax, for both his legendary lethality and his superhuman attention to detail.    

2nd Edition Fighter revisited

Having recently written about the Pathfinder changes to the3.5 version of the Fighter class, it got me thinking about how these character classes evolve over time.  RPG’s seem to be constantly changing in both theme and mechanics, to the point that there is even a semi recent trend of retro style games. Have the martial classes always been outclassed by the magic users? Has the Fighter ever been anything other than a guy in armor, or was he originally imagined to be more? So I decided to go back and check in on the 2^nd edition version of the Fighter and see what the signature armed combatant of the D&D world looked like in the late 80’s/early 90’s, back when I started gaming. And what I found was a class that fills the melee role better than the later versions does. 

Like all 2^nd edition characters, the Fighter has a lot less going on than it’s 3^rd edition successors.  The entire entry in the PHB is barely a page, and the vast majority of it is a chart that shows the types of followers that they can attract when they become 9^th level (a “Lord”). The main benefit of the class is the ability to use any weapon and armor and some additional weapon proficiencies.  I like that just because the Fighter is allowed to use all the weapons, that they don’t automatically know how to wield every instrument of death that there is.  This is a 1^st level character, they probably haven’t had the opportunity to use military picks, all swords, as well as the guisarme-glaive and man-catcher.  The amount of weapon knowledge that characters have in 3.5 has always seemed a bit ridiculous.  A young rogue off the street is trained to use well over a dozen weapons effectively. That seems unlikely.

Reflective of their martial nature, all Warriors (which includes Fighters) have the most favorable THAC0 progression in the game and also have percentile Strength (with an 18 they get bonuses above what a non-warrior receives) and a better hit point bonus from a high Con.  I’m fine with all of this. Does it make sense that a Cleric can never be as strong as the strongest Fighters? Not really, but lots of things in fantasy roleplaying don’t make sense, like monks falling from ridiculous heights but not taking damage if they are sort of close to a wall.  I really don’t know what that is about.  I feel that hurting things through brute force is the domain of the warriors of the game and they should excel at it.

The thing that really sets the Fighter apart from just any old person with a bastard sword is Weapon Specialization, an ability that I feel makes the 2^nd edition Fighter superior to the versions in the other incarnations of the game.  Weapon Specialization allows the Fighter to be a legit expert with a specific weapon type (it costs two proficiencies, so the Fighter can continue to add to this list as they gain proficiencies, there is no limit to their mastery). It’s also an ability that is only available to Fighters, not their brethren in the Warrior group (Rangers and Paladins).  Specialization with a weapon gives the Fighter +1 to attack, +2 to damage, and a significant increase in the number of attacks with the given weapon.  Additionally, specializing in a bow also grants the use of a Point Blank category that gives another +2 to hit on close ranged attacks.  For example, a 1^st level Fighter with a 16 Strength specializing in the long sword is going to have a +1 to attack and a +3 to damage, and also attack three times every two rounds. Chances are that none of the non-warriors in the party are going to have any damage bonuses (in 2^nd edition a 16 is needed in Str to get any sort of bonus), nor can they attack more than once a round. This long sword wielder is going to be doing significantly more damage in melee than anyone else.  It definitely serves to more clearly define the role of each character type. It you want to have a pretty consistent damage dealer in melee, the Fighter is going to be your man.

I think it would sadden the 2^nd edition Fighter to see what became of him in the 3^rd edition.  In an effort to streamline rules and make multiclassing and customization more accessible, the Fighter lost the edge that he had.  (Sure, there is still Weapon Specialization in 3^rd but it sort of sucks.)  And I’m not even one of those people that feels that the Fighter in 3^rd edition is horrible. But because of all the crazy spell options, the rogues sneak attack, classes like the Duskblade and even the Barbarian, the Fighter somehow lost his way as the master of combat and instead became a foot soldier better served to be cutdown by a PC, rather than a warrior of legend.  In 2^nd edition you can still see the badass that he was meant to be. Or at least a warrior that isn't overshadowed by those around him.

Pathfinder Fighter

The 3.5 Fighter has taken a lot of flack for essentially failing at the one thing that it is supposed to do.  Fight.  I agree with this in theory. Yes, it’s totally possible to build a better warrior with just about any other class, but it is also completely realistic that a fighter can be the best damage dealer in most non-uber powered games and a player can enjoy the class.  I’m not too concerned about it.  Fighter, you’ll always have a spot in my game.  However, I’ve recently had the chance to check out the Pathfinder Fighter and I must say that I really like the small changes that they’ve made to the class.  A couple minor tweaks have made the Fighter feel like more of a skilled warrior, which is what they should be. 

Most of the basics of the class remain the same.  Base Attack, saves, skill points, and hit die all remain unchanged.  The skill list has changed a bit.  They have Knowledge (Dungeoneering) and Knowledge (Engineering) as class skills! Who knew that the Fighter could actually know something? What a remarkable development.  Still no Perception (Spot/Listen) though, which is sort of silly.  All that time spent reading engineering books has left them with their head in the clouds, apparently.

The Achilles heel of the fighter (especially in theoretical matchups on internet message boards) has always been their low Will save.  Coupled with a (most likely) low wisdom, they are easy targets for spellcasters. Well, the Will save has not improved, but with the 2^nd level ability Bravery they now get a Will bonus against fear effects! I guess that’s cool.  It’s better than not having it.  I feel like every other character class has a bonus of immunity to fear, so at least the Fighter won’t feel so left out.  Though with all of these immunities flying around, why would any casters bother using fear spells?

Armor Training is a nice ability, maybe my favorite of the new stuff.  It begins at 1 and gradually gets up to 4 (at 17^th level). Each point of it reduces the armor check penalty and increases the max dex of worn armor by that amount.  I like it because it allows the fighter a little bit of diversity and the chance to take advantage of some skills.  Fighters always have high strength, but none of them are ever any good at climbing or jumping because the plate mail ruins it for them. This helps with that a little bit. I’d actually like to see the number get a little higher, but it’s something. In 3.5 if you want to make a lightly armed combatant you are most likely to be anything other than a fighter, maybe a two level dip for some feats.  Armor Training lets you put on the chain shirt and still be able to jump and climb a bit, but have all the combat resources of the fighter. If this ability also applies to shields it is even better (the rules are a bit vague on this).

Weapon Training is the new signature ability for the Fighter.  It allows the Fighter to select a weapon group (Bows, Heavy Blades, etc…) and gain a +1 to attack and damage with any weapon in that group.  It begins at 5^th level and every fourth level they can add a new group and the previous bonuses increase by another +1.  Not bad.  It’s nice that the bonus applies to an entire grouping of weapons and not just a single one, that’s always been the problem with Weapon Specialization.  “I decided at 4^th level that I was all about great axes, but then I found this really awesome magical flail. Oh well, I guess I just have to waste one of the few resources that I actually have.” My favorite grouping is definitely the Close group, it contains the sap, punching dagger, spiked shield, and several other awesome choices.  I assume it’s the most popular among players, easily outdistancing Heavy Blades and Axes.  The cool thing is that it shows that the Fighter, more so than any other class, really knows weapons. And they should! These are the mercenaries, soldiers, and gladiators of the world. They know how to excel with more than just a longsword.  I really like the idea that a medium level Fighter can pick up a bunch of different weapons and not just know how to use it, but to really kick ass with it. 

There are also two high level powers that the Fighter obtains at 19^th and 20^th level, they are Armor Mastery and Weapon Mastery.  Armor Mastery is simply damage reduction 5/- whenever the Fighter wears armor (which I assume is going to be all the time, everyone knows that adventurers sleep in their armor).  I do think it’s odd that this is not a gradual ability that starts lower in the Fighter’s progression, but something that just appears at a pretty high level.  Personally I’d like to see this power just rolled into the Armor Training ability, it’s all sort of the same subject matter of using armor well. Weapon Mastery is the final bit of expertise that the Fighter will get.  At 20^th level they can choose a single weapon type (not group) and with that weapon they automatically confirm critical hits, the critical multiplier increases by one, and they can never be disarmed while wielding this weapon type.  The disarm stuff is mediocre, but the critical aspect is pretty badass.  Is it a reason to take 20 levels of Fighter rather than multiclassing? Probably not, but it’s nice to see that there is something waiting at the end of the long road of battle. 

The Pathfinder version of the Fighter is certainly a more fearsome opponent than the 3.5 version, though I suspect it still lags behind a bit in overall power level compared to other characters. (It seems like everyone got a bump up with Pathfinder). I do like what they’ve done with it.  Before this the Fighter literally did not get a single class feature other than bonus feats, and with the very small exception of some Fighter-only feats there was really nothing that these guys could claim as their own.  Now they’ve got Bravery! Joking aside, this seems like the framework of what could be a very component martial combatant with a large range of options and looks.  I dig it. 

Dungeon Lords is the best game ever, or The Emperor Has No Clothes

Dungeon Lords is the most interesting, engaging, rewarding and fun board game that there has ever been.  It has pathos and irony, plays great with two, three, or four players, the art is wonderful, and it makes you a better person with a deeper understanding of life when you play it.  Of course, I just sort of have to take your word for it because I actually can’t figure out how to play it.  But everyone says it’s awesome! It has a really high ranking on BoardGameGeek (currently 69^th)! It must be the best!

Doesn't this look fun?

At what point is a game not worth playing due to the rules being so complex that the balance of time put into it is not worth the return of “fun” that I am getting out of it?  I’ll let you in on a secret. I play board games because I like them and I find them to be really enjoyable. Enjoyable in the actual moment of gameplay, not because I want to blog about them or to endorse the most obscure game that I can find.  So here’s the deal with Dungeon Lords. I just can’t make sense of it, the game is apparently over my head. The rule book is 24 pages with all sorts of pictures and snarky commentary from monsters! It comes with special boards that have the sole purpose of helping you learn how to play! (So clearly I’m not the only person who has struggled with this.)  I’ve had Dungeon Lords for about two years and not once have we actually played a game through to completion. It’s just too obtuse and far removed from what I want in a game.  I know that this is a personal thing, I’m not damning the entire thing, it’s just not for me.  Actually, I think I might be damning the whole thing.  Who wants to play this? Is it really fun?

I assume that the counter argument here is that once you learn how to play it’s a really great game.  It’s an acquired taste.  But I have so many other games that I really like, so why would I struggle with something in the hopes that one day it will maybe be as fun Ticket to Ride or King of Tokyo? I suspect that Dungeon Lords is actually a great idea more than a great board game.  The concept is awesome.  You take on the role of a monster that owns a dungeon. It is your responsibility to stock the dungeon with traps and monsters, and then adventurers show up and try to take your shit.  And you try to kill them.  Clever and just the sort of role reversal, meta gaming that I really dig.  Except that that the execution of it actually sucks.  There are so many counters and tokens to keep track of, all sorts of different phases to the game that all have their own rules, and the game just seems to move really slow.  Of course, when you have no idea what is really happening it tends to draw your interest away from the actual game. 

After two years I need to admit that Dungeon Lords is just a sunk cost, I will never get anything even close to the $50 that I spent on it back in enjoyment.  I think I may be writing this blog just so I can get some use out of it.  Currently, there is a stack of games on top of Dungeon Lords, it has literally been buried by just about every other game that I have. 

Animal Lord prestige class

The relationship between D&D characters and animals is well established in many parts of the game; there are animal companions for druids and rangers, wild shape, handle animal skills, nature summoning spells, and lots more.  It all makes sense since there is a long history of this type of relationship existing in fantasy stories and lore.  But for some characters it’s not enough to merely be friends with animals and summon them to do their bidding. No, other characters really intend to take it too far and cross some sort of line and maybe become an animal. Kind of?  And it is for these characters that the Animal Lord was born! The Animal Lord is similar to other prestige classes in that a character gives up progressing in their previous class, however it differs because it also seems like you get nothing in return for it.  Seriously, unless your idea of a new power is a claw attack that does 1d4 damage or the ability to detect horses.  And if it is, then this is totally the class for you. 

The thing I like most about the Animal Lord is the great degree of variety that you can find in them.  There are eight different Animal Lords listed (each one connected to a specific animal type) and the requirements are pretty wide open, so all sorts of builds can get into them.  Generally, any sort of warrior type makes the most sense.  The majority of Lords will be rangers and barbarians.  So really any character can wind up as a Horselord as long as they take Run as a feat.  Fifth level is the earliest point of entry. 

As I understand it, Animal Lords are essentially animals in their soul but were unfortunately born into some sort of humanoid form.  The prestige class is a way for them to get closer to who they feel that they really are. In a way that’s really sad. I feel bad for them, they just want to be accepted by their animal brethren. I feel even worse for them when they begin to acquire the shitty abilities that go with their search for identity.  At first level they get the ability to Detect Animals at will, but limited to the type that they are connected to.  I guess this is how they make friends in the animal world, especially when coupled with the Animal Bond that they have with the animal type as well (giving them a bonus to handle animal).  A 4th level they can Speak with Animals, but only once a day so I don’t think they are going to form any lasting friendships. It just seems so desperate.  They need to use magic to make friends. Who would want to adventure with one of these weirdos?

The definitive trait of the class comes at third level and is called Wild Aspect, which is when the Lord actually begins to take on characteristics of their animal type.  Specific to each animal type, the abilities are an all around plethora of actual garbage.  Now, these are characters that are at a minimum eight level. You know what’s really useless for that character?  A claw attack that does 1d4 damage.  Its cool to fight like an animal, except that these characters can actually use weapons.  Do you think that a cat chooses to use his claws because they are awesome? No, it’s because they can’t hold a sword. If they could they would happily abandon their claws for it. (Maybe there is a Human Lord prestige class available to animals?) The sample character presented in the book is a barbarian/Apelord with the following attacks listed in it’s stat block: +14 melee (1d12+7/x3 with a greataxe) or +13 melee (1d4+5 with a claw).  Hmm...which should I attack with? 

And these crappy powers aren’t even active all the time! They start off at once a day for a minute a level.  I get it, having that claw attack all the time is way too powerful. The wizard would definitely get jealous. Other examples are the Sharklord’s 1d8 bite attack, the Horselord runs faster, and the Snakelord gets a weak poison bite. 

Fifth level’s Summon Animal is probably the only ability that is actually good.  The Lord can summon some animals to help him out, or maybe to just bullshit and have a conversation for a couple of minutes.  There are some decent options like a polar bear or a dire lion. 

There is also a bonus feat at sixth level and an attribute increase (+2!) at tenth level, but that’s about it.  The bonus feat is predetermined and features such stellar options as Trample for the Horselord.  The winner has got to be the Apelord’s Brachiation, one of the weirdest feats in the game. It’s actually pretty cool, but I’m not sure how good it is. 

I’ve only seen one actual Animal Lord in play, a strange Cat Lord (read more about his untimely demise here), but I think that’s enough.  There just isn’t really anything going on with them.  If you really like birds you can still dress up like one and act like one if thats what your character wants to do. The best of the bunch is the Wolflord, which is halfway decent though still subpar.  It gets scent and Improved Trip, but that’s not much for the level investment.  I think that any character is better off staying with their original class.