Post/Author/DateTime	Post
michael_noah 07-09-03, 11:47 AM	Does anyone have any info regarding the differences between monsters in the Fiend Folio? Some have level adjustments listed in the character entry that conform to the standard: ECL = class levels + HD + LA But some list a level adjustment that is HD + LA. This is confirmed in the "Monster" as character section, in which it gives an example of a level adjusted character. One monster, I forget the name, but it's a dog-looking barbarian type, has 3 HD, a +3 LA, and the example in the 'as characters' section gives it an ECL of +3. This is obviously wrong, as the monster has very unbalanced stats, natural armor, and a bite attack. There's no errata for the book, but is there some standard place to find corrections for these?
gunnscot 07-09-03, 05:06 PM	first of all the ecl they are refering to is the LA you are refering to. and second of all it has come to my attention that they cut down the ecl of things to make it a fair pc. for instance HD does not equal a class level. a 1st level rogue had the sneak attack abitity, and the traps ability, which is a +1 and it has 1 hd so by the rules it should be a level 2 character... something wrong there
Naga_Slayer 07-10-03, 12:14 AM	In the Savage Species book it has a thing thy call an "Acid Test." They compare the newly created ECL with a standard character race with equal levels in a standard lass and determine which is the better. If they equal out, then the ECL is correct. If the monster is at a disadvantage, then the ECL is incorrect and must be lowered. If the standard character is at a disadvantage, then the monsters ECL is to low and must be raised. I noticed this in the Fiend Folio also, then I got Savage Species and it all made sense to me.
Kastas 07-10-03, 04:04 AM	Um, I think that what he was saying is that there are some discrepancies in the LAs and ECLs given in Fiend Folio. I noticed this too. The first time I flipped through it, in fact (how did they get it past editing, anyway?). Some of the ECLs look like they were actually intended to be LAs, and vice versa. Some of them simply don't look right either way (for the life of me, I still can't figure out why a sillit has an ECL of 18). The khaasta (the creature I think you were referring to) is listed as having a LA of +3 in its stat table, but in the "Khaasta Characters" section, the writers seem to incorrectly use its LA as an ECL, and state that a 1st level khaasta fighter would be considered a 4th level character. Of course, it should actually be 7th. I have yet to see an official response to the matter, so the best I can do is suggest that you use whatever feels right to you. Khaasta, for example, seem much more balanced to me as an ECL 6 race than ECL 3, so if one of my players ever wants to make one, that's what I'll use. And if one of my players ever wants to make a sillit, I'll probably have to rework the LA from scratch. Wait, that's a lie; I'll just tell him "no" and save myself the headache.
michael_noah 07-10-03, 09:11 AM	I think that is what I will end up doing, unfortunately. I'm not sure how that book got published with that many mistakes.