Post/Author/DateTime	Post
BrianMc223 01-22-08, 11:11 PM	That actually works? I simply do not understand what is up with the LA/ECL system. How is it that a Nymph is an ECL 13, and yet only a CR 7? The DMG states that an NPC with a PC class has a CR equal to it's class level. Why is it that a Nymph is equal to a 13th level character, and yet has a challenge rating that is 6 lower? This isn't unique to Nymph's, it's almost universal. (Outsider's tend to be the worst.) Can anyone explain it to me?
Napoleon_the_Clown 01-23-08, 03:57 AM	It has to do with the impact certain abilities have during the course of an encounter versus the impact they'd have during the course of a campaign. As an example (pulling this from the SRD for simplicity...), take the Pixie. During the course of one encounter it won't be able to effectively unleash all of its powers. A simple AoE spell will probably kill it, as it has a tiny amount of health. Even with Irresistible Dance it's CR is only 5. But give it class levels and make it a PC? It'll make for a devastatingly dangerous rogue or assassin. Improved invisibilty always active means it can camp thirty feet away and sit and sneak attack until it runs out of ammo. SR=15+hit dice means it'll be harder to kill off with spells, and that +8 to Dex makes its reflex saves much higher. Evasion and that kind of save means AoE spells are less likely to work. DR 10/Silver is going to make it harder to kill off, too. It's fly speed is going to make the typical traps a lot less deadly. Weapon finesse for free is a rogue's friend. So yeah, it's the impact it has during the long run rather than the twenty or so seconds most encounters last.
runestar 01-23-08, 07:51 AM	The DMG states that an NPC with a PC class has a CR equal to it's class level. The DMG is also very wrong on this. NPCs are notorious for being far too weak for their cr. Why is it that a Nymph is equal to a 13th level character, and yet has a challenge rating that is 6 lower? Because ECL and cr have nothing to do with each other, and should never be compared side by side. The FAQ has dissected this in detail. Why do some creatures have effective character levels higher than their challenge rating? If a hound archon is only CR 4, how can it possibly be as good as an 11th-level character? After all, an 11th-level NPC is CR 11, not CR 4. Effective character level (ECL) and challenge rating (CR) appear similar—after all, they’re both numbers that rate a creature’s toughness—but they actually measure two very different things. A monster’s CR measures how tough that monster is in a typical combat encounter against player characters, while its ECL measures how powerful a PC it would make. Take the hound archon as an example of why this is true. In a typical fight, it likely gets a chance to use its aid spell-like ability only once. However, in a party of adventurers, it can use this ability on itself and every member of the party an unlimited number of times. This means that a smart group of PCs have aid in effect for every battle they fight—even a high-level cleric can’t guarantee that. Similarly, while a hound archon may use its greater teleport ability only a few times at most in a fight, a PC with the ability to use greater teleport at will has an enormous advantage, both in and out of combat. The hound archon’s damage reduction is also much more useful when used by a PC than by a monster. Most PC groups have the ability to deal with a creature’s damage reduction, either overcoming it with the necessary weapons or ignoring it altogether by damaging the monster with spells or other effects. However, most monsters don’t have this option. The vast majority of foes faced by a hound archon have no recourse but to use their normal attack forms, meaning the hound archon can ignore the first 10 points of damage from each and every attack made against it. In the end, a hound archon’s special powers don’t make it tougher than any other CR 4 monster (such as a gargoyle or vampire spawn), but they make it much more potent than a standard PC of a similar level.
BrianMc223 01-23-08, 06:59 PM	That only makes sense in certain ways. A hound archon is not a match for an 11th level pc even though if you use it as a pc it is an 11th level pc. Theoretically, an 11th level barb and an 11th level cleric are equals. You can't possibly say that a Hound Archon is their equal when he doesn't have a chance of winning a fight with them. That's the part I don't get.
skydin 01-23-08, 08:24 PM	Its because the people who made that section were either on mind effecting substances, or had rather serious concussions when they made LA and CR. Personally, I just have all my players play the same LA and then dont take it into account at all, but thats just because I'm to lazy to make it something actually half-way usable.
Wih 01-24-08, 12:31 AM	There are a couple of reasons. Firstly, CR is based on one encounter. Having an ability 3/day and at will make no difference for a creature's CR, because it's probably not going be able to use it more than 3 times in an encounter. A PC, however, will get a lot more mileage out of at will. Secondly, creatures don't get the gear that PCs get. Having equipment of a PC of the appropriate level will add to the CR of the creature. Thirdly, PCs get better stats and other misc. bonuses, such as Action Dice or Hero Points (depending on the system). All of these things together equal a massive increase in CR. Nymph? Low Cr. Nymph with a CHA more than 10 points higher, CHA boosting items, and other defensive items like armour, and something more than a standard dagger? You're looking a much, much bigger threat.
CrimsonDeath 01-24-08, 01:46 AM	That only makes sense in certain ways. A hound archon is not a match for an 11th level pc even though if you use it as a pc it is an 11th level pc. Theoretically, an 11th level barb and an 11th level cleric are equals. You can't possibly say that a Hound Archon is their equal when he doesn't have a chance of winning a fight with them. That's the part I don't get. That's because duels are a horrible way to measure class balance. The assumption isn't that a Barbarian is going to face off against a Cleric. The assumption is that a Barbarian, a Cleric, a Rogue, and a Sorcerer (or a similar crew) are going to face off against one or more monsters. CR is a measure of how tough it is for a diverse group of four PCs to kill something. ECL is a measure of how helpful something is to a group of three PCs trying to overcome an encounter (which might be a monster).
runestar 01-25-08, 04:34 AM	That only makes sense in certain ways. A hound archon is not a match for an 11th level pc even though if you use it as a pc it is an 11th level pc. Theoretically, an 11th level barb and an 11th level cleric are equals. You can't possibly say that a Hound Archon is their equal when he doesn't have a chance of winning a fight with them. For example, the healer can extend the lifespan, and correspondingly, the damage output of the party damage dealers, which more than justifies his slot in the party. That's the part I don't get. PCs are designed based on how effectively they can contribute in a 4-member party, not how well they fare in a 1-v-1 duel. This is why you have viable classes like bard or healer, despite them not being able to fight for nuts. The hound archon is deemed to be ECL11 because that is roughly how strong its abilities make it. Consider that in a 11th lv party, it can spam aid and teleport without error (personal range) at will. These 2 abilities alone are worth quite a bit of LA. You also have 2 moderately useful auras (menace and persistent magic circle vs evil!), and your high NA and decent dr let you compensate for your crap HD. This makes it useful as a support PC (not a frontline tank), in that while you may never deal out as much damage as a dedicated fighter, your contributions to the party is no less inferior.:)
Explosive_Zombie 01-25-08, 05:03 AM	I agree that the LA system is far from a working system... this is mostly present in Templates rather than races themselves. Take Feral from Savage Species or for something more recent, Mineral Warrior from Underdark... DR 8/Adamantine, +3 Natural Armor among other things, all for the low price of -2 to Int, Wis & Cha and the loss of any fly speed you may have? Sign my Fighter/Barbarian/<insert class that could care less about mental stats> up! My point is, some Races get abnormally high LA (the Planetouched races & Vampire[it deserves the +8 but seriously... someone might actually like to play one and not suck]) and some get obceanly low ones (Feral, Mineral Warrior & Lolth Touched). I say do away with the whole mess and don't allow things that arn't +0.
concerro 01-25-08, 01:57 PM	When you use the monster advancing rules most of the CR's are actually close, but the more HD you add the more off it gets, and the DM has to make a judgement call depending on the monster's abilities, and some monsters abilities don't scale together. You may increase a monster's HD, which gives it HP, and DC for special abilities appropriate for the CR that is in the book, but if the AC does not scale, and they are still to easy to hit, then it is hard to judge the CR. When adding class levels you also have to make judgement calls, and see how well the class works with the monster's racial abilities and stats. Some monsters just don't do certain things well. As far as the LA the problem is there will never be a system for 3.x that you can use for every monster. Racial HD are not equal to class levels, so saying a monster with 12 HD and 3 levels of class X has an LA of 17 will not work for every monster. Another issue is that while some monster abilities are nice at lower level, they are not so good at higher levels because other monsters have a defense against them, and the monster that is worth an LA +3 at 8th level may be only worth LA +1 at level 15.
Qube 01-25-08, 03:53 PM	I simply do not understand what is up with the LA/ECL system. once or a life time? a monster is made for 1 encounter while a character is made for 4 encounters per day. a simple example: a SCUD missle: - monsters: good since they can use it against the PCs - PCs: bad, since once used they have to do the rest of their lives without it. freaky abilities something simple like: DR 10/good - monsters: cleric casts holy weapon. now the damage reduction is useless - PCs: how many monsters will have holy weapons? buddies wizards. - monster: this sucks. rogue wins init and sneak attacks the wizard to death. one time encounter piece of cake. - PCs: fighter keeps the main enemies off bay, ... stat changes PCs have better stats: almost all monsters are made with all 10s, while PCs have better stats (most have at least a 16). monsters that use 1 stat can be very very powerfull. if they get a free +3 DC. actually, a nice example is the succubus: - as monster: Yes, she can charm the fighter, at which point she gets sneaked by the rogue and blasted by the wizard. and then the cleric casts magic circle against evil, suppressing all dominates and stuff ... that could seriously set her back, if not kill her. - as PC: come on, she gets a level 9 spell at will. no wizard at lvl 12 can do what she does. since she has a 6d8, the wizard with his 12d4 bearly makes it.
Count Arioch the 28th 01-25-08, 11:36 PM	LA doesn't work. What I do is use the LA rules, but make the following ruling: If WotC says that a monster hit dice is worth a level, then a PC, as an exceptional case, take levels in whatever class they want instead of monster hit dice. In Frank and K's guides, they suggest that you just take the CR of the monster and add 1, that's what level the monster is.
Qube 01-26-08, 01:53 AM	In Frank and K's guides, they suggest that you just take the CR of the monster and add 1, that's what level the monster is.So you lose a level to play something like goblin? (CR = 1/2, so you need 1 level ...) generic rules the might be. but that doens't mean that they are better then the current LA. LA does work: yust like a character of a powerplayer will be stronger then that of a normal player, some players who play monsters will be stronger, some will be weaker. On one side there are ogres, stony warrior, dark whispergnomes, loth touched ... on the other there are vampires ...
runestar 01-26-08, 03:07 AM	LA doesn't work. What I do is use the LA rules, but make the following ruling: If WotC says that a monster hit dice is worth a level, then a PC, as an exceptional case, take levels in whatever class they want instead of monster hit dice. In Frank and K's guides, they suggest that you just take the CR of the monster and add 1, that's what level the monster is. Seems problematic with high HD, low cr monsters. A tarrasque as a ECL21 PC?:P
Count Arioch the 28th 01-26-08, 03:13 AM	Seems problematic with high HD, low cr monsters. A tarrasque as a ECL21 PC?:P I think they mentioned that "puzzle monsters" are a little problematic using that rule of thumb. It's not the hit dice of the tarraque, it's the fact that you have to solve a puzzle to beat it.
Count Arioch the 28th 01-26-08, 03:17 AM	So you lose a level to play something like goblin? Goblins aren't a LA race, therefore they wouldn't use the level +1 method. Here is the exact text that K used, to ensure that I'm not misquoting him. Powerful Races: Level adjustments don't work at all. Characters end up with skill rank maximums that prevent them from taking prestige classes appropriate to their level and they have hit dice that are low enough that they end up getting caught by spells like cloudkill that are designed to keep the henchmen out of a climactic battle, and so on and so forth. Furthermore, while the concept is busted, the implementation is even worse. Characters end up getting LAs assigned to them based on the sum total of their abilities (disregarding hit dice) and then having them added on to the hit dice (disregarding abilities). Monstrous creatures end up paying for rather minor abilities more than once and the end result is that characters who really aren't good at anything end up being counted as being higher level than "normal" characters who can outperform them in every way. That has to stop. In general, a monster that is built like a PC is about 1 CR better than one right out of the Monster Manual. CR really is supposed to equal Level, so we're going to be running with the races which are playable under that rubric: Powerful Monsters As PCs, or “Beholder Mages That Don’t Make Us Cry.” Monsters need to be able to be easy blends of character levels and monster stats. We know that its completely awesome to fight evil mastermind wizards that might just be beholders or giants or some other big monster, and its equally neat to play a cursed vampire warriors who’s trying to redeem his soul. Designers up to this point have attempted to stop players from doing both by making these options unplayable or “the suck”, so its time to right this wrong. To start, let us be perfectly honest about two things: 1. We want to play monsters. 2. We know that the current ECL (Effective Character Level), LA (Level Adjustment), monster PrCs, and monster progression systems don’t work… like, at all. Ok, now that we’ve cleared that up, we can begin. [I could get into elaborate explanations of why these separate systems don’t work, but lets just say that the flaws are self-evident if you put a PC frost giant with only Wizard levels up against an NPC frost giant with only Wizard levels and CRed at the PC’s level, or you try to play a Vampire with its +8 level adjustment and minimum character level of 5. We don’t even have to talk about the Beholder Mage, an atrocity against the DnD community in both its incarnations.] Monsters tend to be build along four kinds of design philosophies. 1. Characters: This is the “as a character” philosophy, which makes monsters at a certain CR where they are perfectly suited to fight parties of characters at that level, but might overpower a weaker party or single character or be a total pushover to more powerful individuals or parties. Giants, gnolls, yuanti, goblinoids and other monsters who are expect to use PC-level tactics and equipment fall into this category. 2. Glass Jaws and Sucker Punches AKA Suckers: These monsters, which we’ll just call “Suckers” for their ability to suck and sucker punch. Usually they have an extremely powerful attack that can sucker punch a party, but they have some glaring weakness that means that they will go down extremely quickly if you exploit this weakness. Sprites, with their fabulously low HPs and powerful magic are a fine example of this monster. “Closet trolls” like trolls and Pouncing dire animals fall into this category because they are extremely dangerous in enclosed spaces (better than any three fighting characters of their CR), but they die easily if you can attack them at range and stay at a distance. 3. Puzzle Monsters: These monsters are in fact more puzzle than monster. They usually are unbeatable unless you know their one weakness, meaning that players who don’t know the right Monster Manual by heart usually die to these things. Classic examples from old editions of DnD like the Windwalkers would only die to a single spell from the spell list which you may or may not know or have on hand, but 3.x has from eased away from this level of arbitrariness. Now we have monsters like Swarms and incorporeal monsters who may be immune to all your normal weapon attacks (a killer for a party without a damage-capable spellcaster) and several kind of plants or oozes that seem to have random and crazy defenses when you attack them (like splitting into more monsters). 4. Awesome Because Its Awesome AKA Player Killers (PKs): Some Monsters are just built to make players cry. Dragons are the classic example, as they are traditionally CRed about two to four lower than they should be, and some other monsters have also been unofficially given the [awesome] subtype, meaning that players will always remember these monsters for being Party Killers. Angels, beholders, monsters with PC spellcasting, and drow typically fall into this category. Can you see the problem with making these creatures into playable and balanced characters? Character monsters and PKs can be easily modified into playable characters by modifying raw stats, but Suckers and Puzzle Monsters need massive rewrites before they can be playable characters. Converting Monsters Into Characters: Method 1: The Easy Way Assume that a monster is a character of its CR+1(modified if it i a monster with the [Awesome] tag), and that its stat modifiers are derived from the assumption that the base monster was built using the Elite Array (highest monster stat – highest elite stat, then repeat for next lowest, etc). For level-dependant effects like skill point maxes, feat prereqs, etc, use the monster’s CR+1. Round ability stat mods down to nearest multiple of 2(negative mods up to multiple of 2), and CRs down to nearest whole number. The nice part of this method is that it is easy, fast, and you can get to playing a monster immediately without as lot of DM intervention or paperwork. The downside is that you might get an underpowered or overpowered monster character if you are not careful (like you forgot that Dragons are actually CRed two less than they should be, or that Sprites are unplayable). Here’s two examples: 1. Minotaur. Its Base CR is 4, and add +1 for being a PC. Its stat mods are (monster-elite array) Str 19-15=+4, Con 15-14=+0(rounded down) Dex 10-13=-2 (rounded) Wis 10-12= -2 Int 10, Cha 8-10= -2 Int 8-7=+0, for a total of +4 Str, -2 Dex, -2 Int, -2, Cha -2 Wis, which is perfectly reasonable. It’s a level 5 PC with skill rank maxes of 8 and 6 monster HD. Frankly, it's a warrior class with a little bit of punch from natural armor, small stat mods from its size, and some fun but not good noncombat abilities. It's nothing to write home about as a 5th level character, and that's much more reasonable than the ECL 8 the MM would have you play it at. 2. Succubus: CR 7, +1 for being a PC. Stat mods equal Cha 26-15=+10(rounded), Int 16-14=+2, Wis 14-13=+0(rounded), Str 13- 12=+2, Con 12- 10= +2, Dex 12-8=+4 for a +10 Cha, +2 Int, +2 Str, +2 Con, +4 Dex. It’s an 8th level character who is almost as good as a Warlock of its level. Generally, it’s a far better 8th level character than the than the ECL 14 the MM would have you pay. The fact that its abilities will never grow in power is offset by the fact that it has a high Cha, and so good DCs on its spell-likes. Method 2: This method is the same as Method 1, but it goes a bit further by converting HD to actually appropriate HD by giving the monster the HD that equals its CR and BAB. This corrects problems just as excess HD from giants and undead. Basically, look that the monster’s HD and BAB. What kind of HD would it need to keep about the same BAB and HPs, but would give it the appropriate number of HD to fit its CR/level (which also fixes Saves to reasonably levels). Assign it that HD, and move on with your life. Here’s an example: Fire Giant. Ok, the Fire Giant is a CR 11 as a PC, and notice that it has a BAB of 11, Great! Normally, it has 15 HD which leads to some craziness if he ever gets a Con boost and it has saves that are a little too big, so lets convert it. Lets give it 11 Barbarian HD(d12s, +1 BAB, good Fort save). We see that he keeps his BAB of 11, his HPs change from 142 to 133, and its base saves are Fort +7, Will/Ref +3 like an actual 11th level character instead of Fort +9, Will/Ref +5.
runestar 01-26-08, 03:41 AM	Characters end up getting LAs assigned to them based on the sum total of their abilities (disregarding hit dice) and then having them added on to the hit dice (disregarding abilities). I disagree with this quote, in that I have always believed that racial HD served to mitigate what would otherwise have been a higher LA. However, I admit that there is difficulty in proving my point, because there is no way of telling if the LA has already taken this into consideration or not. The closest I have are a few empirical evidence (such as ogre vs half-ogre, and the various ethergaunts). Does K have anything to back up his claim that LA was never downwards adjusted to account for inferior racial HD?:confused: Likewise, his proposed solution merely provides an alternative to playing powerful monsters, it does not resolve them outright, IMO. For example, if I want to play a minotaur PC, I naturally want a minotaur as printed in the MM, with all its strengths and weaknesses (and a fair LA to boot), not something with watered down stats attempting to pass off as a minotaur (which kinda defeats the purpose, in that I could just play an orc, tape horns to my skull and call myself a minotaur). Has K's system actually been playtested properly (to ensure that his advice is internally consistent to work with the existing 3.5e ruleset)?
Empirate 01-26-08, 11:13 AM	Given that racial HD suck really big time, and we all know it - I sincerely doubt that their existence or nonexistence has influenced many LA ratings. Actually, in many cases I have the feeling that in 3.0, the designers took racial HD into account when assigning LA, while in 3.5 they abandoned that good practice. My example for this would be the Kir-Lanan, a fun, FR-only, negative energy based Gargoyle variant one of the players in my group is currently playing. The Kir-Lanan have 4 racial HD: Monstrous Humanoid. Those aren't the suckiest around, with their full BAB, but they come close due to skill point suckage. In 3.0, they had +3 LA (IIRC) for good ability mods, some NA, a very good fly speed, and two minor spell-like abilities. As a Fighter1, they were ECL 8, a bit high but manageable if you used the guy wisely: fragile but competent and versatile. In 3.5, as of Races of Faerűn, they were updated in several ways: The save DC of their spell-like abilities was declared to be fixed (non-ability-dependent), which always sucks. And their LA was increased to +4, making them all but unplayable at any level, and leaving me with the distinct impression that somebody re-"calculated" the LA based solely on the Kir-Lanan abilities without taking racial HD into regard. The long and short of it is this: My player wanted to play a Kir-Lanan and not suck, which I could totally understand, given the fantastic flavor of a Kir-Lanan Ur-Priest! So I revised LA and ECL rules in the following way: LA remains unchanged, but racial HD (which are far from being as good as class levels) are multiplied by two thirds, rounded real (i.e., fractions are rounded down if below .5, otherwise rounded up). The Kir-Lanan without class levels now has ECL 7 again: 4 racial HD, times 2/3 equals 2 2/3, rounded up to 3. Add LA+4 for a final ECL of 7. Take a level of Fighter or whatever, and you're ECL 8. This seems to work so far, I made some monstrous NPCs using these rules already, and they seem to be just fine. Of course, playing a Giant will net you much more from this than playing a Sprite, so the system doesn't solve all problems.
CrimsonDeath 01-26-08, 11:33 AM	Has K's system actually been playtested properly (to ensure that his advice is internally consistent to work with the existing 3.5e ruleset)? As I understand, K approaches game balance with a different set of assumptions than the designers. For one thing, K believes that a character should be able to routinely defeat a monster of a CR equal to his own level singlehandedly, using intelligent tactics and minimal resources.
Count Arioch the 28th 01-26-08, 11:45 AM	Actually, they believe that a character should be able to beat a monster of his own CR roughly half the time, because CR 10 should always equal CR 10.
CrimsonDeath 01-26-08, 09:33 PM	That wasn't the opinion that was expressed when I got into an argument with K.
Einvaldurinn_mikli 01-26-08, 09:45 PM	That wasn't the opinion that was expressed when I got into an argument with K. Weird. Every time I've seen him post on that subject his stance has always been as the Count describes. Are you sure you are not misrepresenting him?
runestar 01-26-08, 10:13 PM	Actually, they believe that a character should be able to beat a monster of his own CR roughly half the time, because CR 10 should always equal CR 10. Which is not what classes are necessarily designed in mind with. Some are more support-oriented, and may tend to suck in combat, but it still does not necessarily mean that they are weak, just that their strengths/roles lie elsewhere. For example, a creature with aid and cure light wounds useable at will would likely have a hefty LA to come with it, because it can ensure that the entire party will always be at 101% life at all times. This contributes nothing offensive-wise, but does improve the attacking capabilities of your other party members.
Count Arioch the 28th 01-27-08, 02:19 AM	Which is not what classes are necessarily designed in mind with. And that's where the problem with D&D lies. Not all 10th level characters are CR 10. Hence the revision that K and Frank Trollman were writing, before real life struck and they had to mostly abandon the project.
runestar 01-27-08, 03:29 AM	And that's where the problem with D&D lies. Not all 10th level characters are CR 10. Which has nothing to do with the concept of ECL altogether....
Count Arioch the 28th 01-27-08, 11:07 AM	Which has nothing to do with the concept of ECL altogether.... I repeat, that's the problem here.
CrimsonDeath 01-27-08, 01:53 PM	Weird. Every time I've seen him post on that subject his stance has always been as the Count describes. Are you sure you are not misrepresenting him? In the argument to which I'm referring, K described a level 16 Ranger and a level 16 Wizard, either of whom could presumably defeat a CR 16 Greater Stone Golem without getting hit. The Ranger expended 23 adamantine arrows, and the Wizard cast Acid Fog once and Ventriloquism twice. I could link you to the thread in question, if you want.
Fwib 01-27-08, 03:05 PM	In the argument to which I'm referring, K described a level 16 Ranger and a level 16 Wizard, either of whom could presumably defeat a CR 16 Greater Stone Golem without getting hit. The Ranger expended 23 adamantine arrows, and the Wizard cast Acid Fog once and Ventriloquism twice. I could link you to the thread in question, if you want.A Greater Stone Golem is not CR16. (In the sense that it is too weak to be CR 16) A GSG in a small room where you can't get away from it comes closer, but is still probably quite easy for a party of level 16 or even many single adventurers.
BrianMc223 01-27-08, 07:14 PM	Runestar:You say it works because of the impact that their abilities have on a standard party. How would you say that the following party would fair in a game: Astral Deva ECL20, CR 14. Hound Archon with 9 class levels, ECL20, CR 13. Gold Dragon (young), ECL20, CR 9. Stone Giant Elder, ECL20, CR 9. Think they could handle a Pit Fiend? An Old Red Dragon? How about the Tarrasque? I think they would get stomped by any level appropriate encounter. The only one that is even remotely competent is the Hound Archon. Surprise surprise, the one with the lowest base ECL. Their hp is universally mediocre, none of them can hit the broad side of a barn, no spell casting other than a few spell likes, none of them have skills that are good (I suppose the Archon could take nine levels of Rogue and be mediocre).
CrimsonDeath 01-28-08, 06:49 PM	A Greater Stone Golem is not CR16. (In the sense that it is too weak to be CR 16) A GSG in a small room where you can't get away from it comes closer, but is still probably quite easy for a party of level 16 or even many single adventurers. Perhaps it shouldn't be a CR 16, but that is the CR that the game designers gave it. And since golems are created by powerful spellcasters and generally serve as guards, a small room seems like the most reasonable place to meet it. (The ranger, for some reason, was fighting it in an outdoor natural environment, which seems like a bizarre place for a stone golem to be wandering around.) For the record, K chose it because it was a Core CR 16 creature with DR/adamantine, and the subject at the hand was whether Monks are balanced.
runestar 01-29-08, 01:09 PM	Runestar:You say it works because of the impact that their abilities have on a standard party. How would you say that the following party would fair in a game: Astral Deva ECL20, CR 14. Hound Archon with 9 class levels, ECL20, CR 13. Gold Dragon (young), ECL20, CR 9. Stone Giant Elder, ECL20, CR 9. Think they could handle a Pit Fiend? An Old Red Dragon? How about the Tarrasque? I think they would get stomped by any level appropriate encounter. The only one that is even remotely competent is the Hound Archon. Surprise surprise, the one with the lowest base ECL. Their hp is universally mediocre, none of them can hit the broad side of a barn, no spell casting other than a few spell likes, none of them have skills that are good (I suppose the Archon could take nine levels of Rogue and be mediocre). I don't see how it would be impossible. Bear in mind that as a ECL20 PC, you are eligible for point buy (or roll your stats) or whatever you use to generate them, as well as get gear appropriate for your ECL (760,000gp at lv20). This ensures that your powerful race's stats will be far superior to that of a standard MM version (which uses base 10s and tend to be noticeably lacking in eq). They do have some weaknesses though. For example, their LA tends to make them especially vulnerable to HD-based effects such as blasphemy or enervation. Their lack of HD usually translates to poorer hp (even with con boosts), but this can be remedied with their (usually) higher NA and dr. With careful playing, it should even out. Also, I do not mean that you can just throw any 4 powerful races into a party and expect to make it work. One possible drawback is that their natural abilities tend to skew them such that there is really only 1 or 2 ways they can be played if they are to be worth their ECL. This also means that you may have to be prepared to build your entire party around said race in order to maximize their strengths while minimizing their weaknesses. I would play one of those races to complement a standard party, but probably not in the combination you have mentioned above. It is little different from playing say, a party of 4 fighters or rogues. Such a lop-sided makeup is just asking for trouble. It is interesting that you should list such a party makeup though. I have been following a PBP adventure titled Assault upon the Abyssal Fortress foes (http://forums.gleemax.com/leaving.php?destination=http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php%3Ft%3D661698) and the PCs they use are virtually identical to yours. I think it may answer your question better than I ever can. Plus, it is a late night and I will try to further expound on it tomorrow.:)
qwerty1 01-29-08, 01:22 PM	Why don't you try here. YabaTheWhat's feature points (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=9596753&postcount=1)
Meep222 01-29-08, 01:37 PM	My point is, some Races get abnormally high LA (the Planetouched races & Vampire[it deserves the +8 but seriously... someone might actually like to play one and not suck]) and some get obceanly low ones (Feral, Mineral Warrior & Lolth Touched). I say do away with the whole mess and don't allow things that arn't +0. I completely disagree, I played a Vampire once, Illumian Cleric of Pelor/Lifedrinker. I came into the game at 15th level, and I had a great time, not only was I still considered the most dangerous person in the party (I always am, for some reason). It's all in how you play it, and put together the levels.
BrianMc223 01-29-08, 02:52 PM	Meep: I find that rather hard to believe. What exactly were you doing that made you so dangerous?
Fwib 01-29-08, 04:51 PM	My group is experimenting with this (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=760360) LA-variant system. It still doesn't work, but it does some things less badly than regular LA. There are probably some things even more wrong with it than regular LA, too.
Meep222 01-30-08, 05:31 PM	Meep: I find that rather hard to believe. What exactly were you doing that made you so dangerous? Nothing... I just hinted at some of my abilities. But then I proved them right when somehow I would've been able to take on Two full/fresh Pit Feinds and a PC turned against the party in the final fight of the campagin, at 24th level. If Asmodeaus (sp?) hadn't dispelled most of my equipment. Even after that, I could've given em a good fight.
deathbane 01-30-08, 05:41 PM	Nothing... I just hinted at some of my abilities. But then I proved them right when somehow I would've been able to take on Two full/fresh Pit Feinds and a PC turned against the party in the final fight of the campagin, at 24th level. If Asmodeaus (sp?) hadn't dispelled most of my equipment. Even after that, I could've given em a good fight. At 24th level you should be able to take 2 pit fiends, but I know that LA's dont equal class levels and I can't see your vampire being the most effective party member unless he had more than the normal amount of magic items or the challenges were easier than they should have been, and considering the fact that most post I have seen here from people who have played vampires talked about how hard it was to stay alive the "nothing" statement seems not to be true or there were things going on such as rules being broken that gave you an advantage whether you knew about it or not.
Meep222 01-30-08, 05:48 PM	The only house rules where that you could wear as many rings/necklaces you wanted and BAB and Saves still continued to accure after 20 (did not use that as I had the +8 LA), I still only had one of each of the rings and whatnot, I did have an AC into the high 60's- low 70's. My main ability I was using was the Necrotic Focus and Ennervating on my two rapiers. As long as I hit atleast once a round, that was 1 negative level, then with a 25% chance to crit, and a higher chance to confirm thanks to Power Critical and such, I was draining 1-3 levels a round, and 1-5 con with wounding on each weapon.
BrianMc223 01-30-08, 06:26 PM	How did you pull that kind of AC? (While actually being able to hit anything) I'm really curious if you found a way to actually make a vamp that didn't blow. I'd appreciate anything you remember.
Meep222 01-30-08, 07:09 PM	Well, if I remember right, my base from Dex (Belt of Mag +6) and NA (Amulet of NA+5) was around 30 or 35, then I had the Insight and Luck bonuses to AC from the stones, +5 Celestial Chainmail (and I think Nimble, and Segmented [Non-magical property from a Dragon Magazine +2 MDB]), a Animated +5 Heavy Steel sheild, and that should get you right around 60-62 AC. DM allowed the crafter to make gloves that had Wraithstrike usable at will, or always active or something like that. This was an insanly high magic game, so we had magic items out the ass.
deathbane 01-30-08, 11:13 PM	Well, if I remember right, my base from Dex (Belt of Mag +6) and NA (Amulet of NA+5) was around 30 or 35, then I had the Insight and Luck bonuses to AC from the stones, +5 Celestial Chainmail (and I think Nimble, and Segmented [Non-magical property from a Dragon Magazine +2 MDB]), a Animated +5 Heavy Steel sheild, and that should get you right around 60-62 AC. DM allowed the crafter to make gloves that had Wraithstrike usable at will, or always active or something like that. This was an insanly high magic game, so we had magic items out the ass. I figured it was some extremely lenient DM when you were able to exceed with a character that everyone else was having trouble surviving with. Those gloves would be worthy of being an artifact, and with the house rules... The only house rules where that you could wear as many rings/necklaces you wanted and BAB and Saves still continued to accure after 20 (did not use that as I had the +8 LA).. it should be easy to defeat any encounter. Now that we know you were in an extremely favored campaign, how would you balance a vampire with normal gear and rules?
BrianMc223 01-31-08, 12:27 AM	Wraithstrike.... At will....... So your DM, instead of banning it like lots and lots of DMs, gave you an at will item of it. Thus bypassing one of the fundamental problems with high LA. He also put this item in the world that would let commoners hit Great Wyrms Dragons, and nobody rounded up a posse to hunt you down and take it? Although honestly it would only cost 1200gp...... I agree it should be an artifact. A really really really cool artifact. Gloves that make you never miss. I love it.
Meep222 01-31-08, 04:59 PM	I figured it was some extremely lenient DM when you were able to exceed with a character that everyone else was having trouble surviving with. Those gloves would be worthy of being an artifact, and with the house rules... Now that we know you were in an extremely favored campaign, how would you balance a vampire with normal gear and rules? I used neither of those rules, and the gloves were priced at something like 40k, the only person who crafted it was a PC crafter, so we had to purchase it afterwards and takes time off to do it. But I do agree, it should be a higher priced item.
deathbane 01-31-08, 05:11 PM	I used neither of those rules, and the gloves were priced at something like 40k, the only person who crafted it was a PC crafter, so we had to purchase it afterwards and takes time off to do it. But I do agree, it should be a higher priced item. So enlighten the board on how you accomplished what nobody else seems to be able to do.
BrianMc223 01-31-08, 10:14 PM	But I do agree, it should be a higher priced item. It should be an artifact. One of the better artifacts as far as direct combat ability. At level 20 a melee guy can easily have a +30/+25/+20/+15, assuming average roles that means that someone with this item is going to hit a Great Wyrm Prismatic Dragon with all four attacks. I'm looking through the ELH, there are very few things you wouldn't hit with all four.
KruniacZio 02-02-08, 12:24 PM	I never use Level Adjustment. Its akward, broken (usually to make creatures with LA t3h suk to play), and just bad. I just use hit dice. Obviously a Mind Flayer is going to have a certain amount of hit dice, so that is the level a player uses it at. Then you can add class levels to that. I like playing all sorts of creatures and so forth. Playing a Hezrou was fun - I eventually became a Nalfenshee (losing all of my hit dice - I was up to 19), and went about the task of rending souls to peices, only giving mercy if said souls would reveal their family member's location on the prime, so that -they- could be rent to peices instead. Bwah! Anyway, Level Adjustment isnt good. Most creatures dont even have a Level Adjustment, which just confuses people even more.
Empirate 02-04-08, 01:33 PM	KruniacZio, for the sake of the argument that was already going on here, you should probably restrain yourself from posting. Judging not only from this post, but also from what I read by you in other threads, you don't have the first idea about game balance or why some people think it's important. Also, stating something like Anyway, Level Adjustment isnt good. doesn't give you bonus points for originality of argument.