LA vs Racial HD [Archive] - Wizards Community

LA vs Racial HD [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
skio
05-12-07, 11:49 AM Recenlty I have tried to convert a number of DnD races into more playable versions (ie with less ECL) to use in my campaign setting. One of the methods I came up with is eliminating racial HD.

An example: A Thri-Kreen has 2 racial HD and a +2 LA, for a total ECL of 4. Removing the HD and keeping the LA makes the character have an ECL of 2, thus rendering it playable even at 3rd level.

Whether removing the HD is logical and true to the monster's concept and design intentions is a subject of great debate that I have no intention of bringing up right now.

My question is simpler: In what degree is removing the HD unbalancing for the race? How much balance a racial HD offers, in contrast to a +1 LA? In other words, how much I must raise the LA to balance the loss of racial HD?

Racial HD strip you of class abilities but still give you BAB, hp, saves, skills and feats. LA strips you from everything a class level offers you. So HD are not strong balancing factors for a powerful race (they, after all, are not intended to be).

So, what is your estimation about the balancing relation between HD and LA? A rough estimation of my own would be 3 HD = +1 LA.
Thomar_of_Uointer
05-12-07, 12:49 PM Recenlty I have tried to convert a number of DnD races into more playable versions (ie with less ECL) to use in my campaign setting. One of the methods I came up with is eliminating racial HD.

An example: A Thri-Kreen has 2 racial HD and a +2 LA, for a total ECL of 4. Removing the HD and keeping the LA makes the character have an ECL of 2, thus rendering it playable even at 3rd level.

Whether removing the HD is logical and true to the monster's concept and design intentions is a subject of great debate that I have no intention of bringing up right now.

My question is simpler: In what degree is removing the HD unbalancing for the race? How much balance a racial HD offers, in contrast to a +1 LA? In other words, how much I must raise the LA to balance the loss of racial HD?

Racial HD strip you of class abilities but still give you BAB, hp, saves, skills and feats. LA strips you from everything a class level offers you. So HD are not strong balancing factors for a powerful race (they, after all, are not intended to be).

So, what is your estimation about the balancing relation between HD and LA? A rough estimation of my own would be 3 HD = +1 LA.

I've seen a common hard-and-fast rule of 2 Hit Dice = +1 LA, but this varies depending on creature type and abilities. 3 Hit Dice is far too much, and 1 Hit Die is just silly.
DarkRhystar
05-12-07, 12:59 PM In what degree is removing the HD unbalancing for the race?

If you are only removing hit die, then you are making the race more powerful. Unless the race is underpowered to begin with, you are making things worse.

How much balance a racial HD offers, in contrast to a +1 LA?

Racial hit die are more valuable than LA for the acknowledged reasons. Unlike LA, they give BAB, saves, HP, and skills.

In other words, how much I must raise the LA to balance the loss of racial HD?

See below.

So, what is your estimation about the balancing relation between HD and LA?

The problem with this is that some LAs are unplayable. Unless you have some hefty immunities, this usually means any LA above +4.

Imagine a +5 LA creature with one class level going into 6th level encounters. Magic Missile alone could probably kill it in one shot.

This is the point of racial hit die: To make a race that would have a high LA survivable.

If you start switching RHD to LA, you're going to have a bunch of high LA races with about as much consistency as a wet paper bag.
Seldriss
05-12-07, 06:40 PM That's why racial levels have been invented (as in Savage Species).
They solve the problems of LA and racial hit dice.
Both are combined into racial levels, and the character really has the potential of a character of his level.
DarkRhystar
05-12-07, 09:14 PM That's why racial levels have been invented (as in Savage Species).
They solve the problems of LA and racial hit dice.
Both are combined into racial levels, and the character really has the potential of a character of his level.

It doesn't solve anything of the sort

Both concepts still exist and are represented by racial levels.

The only thing racial levels do is allow someone to play a creature as of level 1. Something which wouldn't even be possible if the creature's ECL was all/almost all LA instead of RHD.
runestar
05-12-07, 10:35 PM High LA does not automatically mean it is necessarily unplayable.
It just means that it is not quite suitable for low lv play. But high lv usage is still viable.

Imagine a pixie character. At ECL5, it has just 1 class lv, making it extremely fragile(despite having good sr, AC, invis and dr).

But once you have a few class lvs under your belt, the drawbacks are then not as crippling. A pixie with 7-8+ rogue or barb lvs can be quite fun to play.

In fact, some of the more viable SS progressions have quite high ECLs, like the astral deva and ghaele(both ECL20). It helps that their racial progressions frontload their HD to aid survivability at lower lvs. In fact, if your campaign caps out at lv5-6, consider playing one(the first 5 lvs of the ghaele class grants 5 outsider HD, so the drawback of LA never really kicks in).:)
DarkRhystar
05-12-07, 10:51 PM High LA does not automatically mean it is necessarily unplayable.

If something isn't playable at all levels it's available, we shouldn't pretend it is or use niceties to conveniently step around that fact.

In fact, some of the more viable SS progressions have quite high ECLs, like the astral deva and ghaele(both ECL20). It helps that their racial progressions frontload their HD to aid survivability at lower lvs. In fact, if your campaign caps out at lv5-6, consider playing one(the first 5 lvs of the ghaele class grants 5 outsider HD, so the drawback of LA never really kicks in).:)

I concur.
runestar
05-12-07, 11:15 PM If something isn't playable at all levels it's available, we shouldn't pretend it is or use niceties to conveniently step around that fact.
I wasn't trying to sweep the problem under the carpet or anything. I was simply pointing out something I felt as an unfortunate, but necessary double standard.

This is probably because some abilities are arguably worth more at lower lvs than higher lvs, so it is difficult to assign a single LA which does it justice at all lvs.

An ogre PC at ECL6 sucks compared to an orc barb6. But an ogre with 10 lvs of fighter can easily hold its own against a barb or fighter16.

If you tweak certain SS progressions to make them more playable at lower lvs, you potentially run the risk of them being too strong at higher lvs. One viable solution I see for this is some sort of compromise. You are slightly weaker at lower lvs, in exchange for being slightly stronger at higher lvs.:P
Nathreet
05-12-07, 11:42 PM This is probably because some abilities are arguably worth more at lower lvs than higher lvs, so it is difficult to assign a single LA which does it justice at all lvs.

An ogre PC at ECL6 sucks compared to an orc barb6. But an ogre with 10 lvs of fighter can easily hold its own against a barb or fighter16.

I see the point, though that may not be the best example. I've been running a lot of tests with different races across the entire range of levels and ogres did rather poorly. A better example might be the grimlock or lizardfolk, which did pretty well. Compared to PHB races, the lizardfolk did better at higher levels and worse at lower levels when I tested him. OTOH his level of power wasn't terribly different from the PHB races at any level.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
skio 05-12-07, 11:49 AM	Recenlty I have tried to convert a number of DnD races into more playable versions (ie with less ECL) to use in my campaign setting. One of the methods I came up with is eliminating racial HD. An example: A Thri-Kreen has 2 racial HD and a +2 LA, for a total ECL of 4. Removing the HD and keeping the LA makes the character have an ECL of 2, thus rendering it playable even at 3rd level. Whether removing the HD is logical and true to the monster's concept and design intentions is a subject of great debate that I have no intention of bringing up right now. My question is simpler: In what degree is removing the HD unbalancing for the race? How much balance a racial HD offers, in contrast to a +1 LA? In other words, how much I must raise the LA to balance the loss of racial HD? Racial HD strip you of class abilities but still give you BAB, hp, saves, skills and feats. LA strips you from everything a class level offers you. So HD are not strong balancing factors for a powerful race (they, after all, are not intended to be). So, what is your estimation about the balancing relation between HD and LA? A rough estimation of my own would be 3 HD = +1 LA.
Thomar_of_Uointer 05-12-07, 12:49 PM	Recenlty I have tried to convert a number of DnD races into more playable versions (ie with less ECL) to use in my campaign setting. One of the methods I came up with is eliminating racial HD. An example: A Thri-Kreen has 2 racial HD and a +2 LA, for a total ECL of 4. Removing the HD and keeping the LA makes the character have an ECL of 2, thus rendering it playable even at 3rd level. Whether removing the HD is logical and true to the monster's concept and design intentions is a subject of great debate that I have no intention of bringing up right now. My question is simpler: In what degree is removing the HD unbalancing for the race? How much balance a racial HD offers, in contrast to a +1 LA? In other words, how much I must raise the LA to balance the loss of racial HD? Racial HD strip you of class abilities but still give you BAB, hp, saves, skills and feats. LA strips you from everything a class level offers you. So HD are not strong balancing factors for a powerful race (they, after all, are not intended to be). So, what is your estimation about the balancing relation between HD and LA? A rough estimation of my own would be 3 HD = +1 LA. I've seen a common hard-and-fast rule of 2 Hit Dice = +1 LA, but this varies depending on creature type and abilities. 3 Hit Dice is far too much, and 1 Hit Die is just silly.
DarkRhystar 05-12-07, 12:59 PM	In what degree is removing the HD unbalancing for the race? If you are only removing hit die, then you are making the race more powerful. Unless the race is underpowered to begin with, you are making things worse. How much balance a racial HD offers, in contrast to a +1 LA? Racial hit die are more valuable than LA for the acknowledged reasons. Unlike LA, they give BAB, saves, HP, and skills. In other words, how much I must raise the LA to balance the loss of racial HD? See below. So, what is your estimation about the balancing relation between HD and LA? The problem with this is that some LAs are unplayable. Unless you have some hefty immunities, this usually means any LA above +4. Imagine a +5 LA creature with one class level going into 6th level encounters. Magic Missile alone could probably kill it in one shot. This is the point of racial hit die: To make a race that would have a high LA survivable. If you start switching RHD to LA, you're going to have a bunch of high LA races with about as much consistency as a wet paper bag.
Seldriss 05-12-07, 06:40 PM	That's why racial levels have been invented (as in Savage Species). They solve the problems of LA and racial hit dice. Both are combined into racial levels, and the character really has the potential of a character of his level.
DarkRhystar 05-12-07, 09:14 PM	That's why racial levels have been invented (as in Savage Species). They solve the problems of LA and racial hit dice. Both are combined into racial levels, and the character really has the potential of a character of his level. It doesn't solve anything of the sort Both concepts still exist and are represented by racial levels. The only thing racial levels do is allow someone to play a creature as of level 1. Something which wouldn't even be possible if the creature's ECL was all/almost all LA instead of RHD.
runestar 05-12-07, 10:35 PM	High LA does not automatically mean it is necessarily unplayable. It just means that it is not quite suitable for low lv play. But high lv usage is still viable. Imagine a pixie character. At ECL5, it has just 1 class lv, making it extremely fragile(despite having good sr, AC, invis and dr). But once you have a few class lvs under your belt, the drawbacks are then not as crippling. A pixie with 7-8+ rogue or barb lvs can be quite fun to play. In fact, some of the more viable SS progressions have quite high ECLs, like the astral deva and ghaele(both ECL20). It helps that their racial progressions frontload their HD to aid survivability at lower lvs. In fact, if your campaign caps out at lv5-6, consider playing one(the first 5 lvs of the ghaele class grants 5 outsider HD, so the drawback of LA never really kicks in).:)
DarkRhystar 05-12-07, 10:51 PM	High LA does not automatically mean it is necessarily unplayable. If something isn't playable at all levels it's available, we shouldn't pretend it is or use niceties to conveniently step around that fact. In fact, some of the more viable SS progressions have quite high ECLs, like the astral deva and ghaele(both ECL20). It helps that their racial progressions frontload their HD to aid survivability at lower lvs. In fact, if your campaign caps out at lv5-6, consider playing one(the first 5 lvs of the ghaele class grants 5 outsider HD, so the drawback of LA never really kicks in).:) I concur.
runestar 05-12-07, 11:15 PM	If something isn't playable at all levels it's available, we shouldn't pretend it is or use niceties to conveniently step around that fact. I wasn't trying to sweep the problem under the carpet or anything. I was simply pointing out something I felt as an unfortunate, but necessary double standard. This is probably because some abilities are arguably worth more at lower lvs than higher lvs, so it is difficult to assign a single LA which does it justice at all lvs. An ogre PC at ECL6 sucks compared to an orc barb6. But an ogre with 10 lvs of fighter can easily hold its own against a barb or fighter16. If you tweak certain SS progressions to make them more playable at lower lvs, you potentially run the risk of them being too strong at higher lvs. One viable solution I see for this is some sort of compromise. You are slightly weaker at lower lvs, in exchange for being slightly stronger at higher lvs.:P
Nathreet 05-12-07, 11:42 PM	This is probably because some abilities are arguably worth more at lower lvs than higher lvs, so it is difficult to assign a single LA which does it justice at all lvs. An ogre PC at ECL6 sucks compared to an orc barb6. But an ogre with 10 lvs of fighter can easily hold its own against a barb or fighter16. I see the point, though that may not be the best example. I've been running a lot of tests with different races across the entire range of levels and ogres did rather poorly. A better example might be the grimlock or lizardfolk, which did pretty well. Compared to PHB races, the lizardfolk did better at higher levels and worse at lower levels when I tested him. OTOH his level of power wasn't terribly different from the PHB races at any level.