LA for Gestalt [Archive] - Wizards Community

LA for Gestalt [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
jagggar
10-12-05, 05:40 PM Yes, yes, I know what comes next. Two or three posts talking about how Gestalt is a campaign variant and how no two gestalts are the same power-level.

My idea is to give each of the gestalts based on the core PHB classes its own LA. The class would have to be followed all 20 levels, no multi-classing out of gestalt, no Sorcerer 20//Fighter 10/Barbarian10, no PrCs.
Grizzled Gryphon
10-13-05, 11:51 AM Umm, good luck with that.
00_Whupass
10-13-05, 02:35 PM If you want to mix gestalt and normal characters ,which as you predicted I vehemently oppose, I would handle it like 2nd edition multiclassing. 2nd edition multiclassing is the inspiration for the gestalt campaign option, therefore we can look to that mechanic for considerations as to how to balance the mix of gestalt and non gestalt. In 2nd ed the XP earned by your character was reduced by a factor detirmined by the number of classes you had, 2 classes 50% xp penalty, 3 classes 66% xp penalty. Therefore since gestalt characters always have 2 sides I would rule a 50% xp penalty.

While I understand that due to the limitations on actions taken in a round the gestalt is not truely twice as powerful as a normal character, however I feel that anything less than a 50% xp penalty would be an insufficent to deter a player from playing a gestalt instead of a traditional character.

LA is, I feel, a completely inadequate solution to the problem. A LA is a one time adjustment to account for a static difference in character abilities. For instance a LA from a race, or template accounts for the abilities granted by that race or template at the time they are aquired, these bonuses are static and do not increase as time progresses thus a one time LA is the appropriate mechanic. However, in the case of intermixing gestalt and standard characters the power gap between the gestalt and the standard character is not a static gap, but rather a gulf that widens as the character levels, which is why an XP penalty is a far better solution as it scales with the character.
Cynlas
10-15-05, 03:15 AM While not the direction I have chosen for my campaign, if you are going to, then I'd have to say no more than a +1 or +2 LA, as the DM notes in UA seem to suggest that the increased power is not really that significant.

Based on the notes in UA, which encourages an "off the books" type of adjustment, simply has you upping the CR of the encounters by a point or two.

As to determining which LA any given combo should have, well; perhaps a +1 where the two classes are closely related, or there is significant overlap (like a Cleric-Paladin), but a +2 for those classes where there is no significant overlap, and where there is major optiminization and weakness coverage (like a Fighter-Mage).

I've sidestepped the issue in my campaign as I did away with level-based XP, so CRs and LAs don't mean much beyond character creation (ECL/LA ratings do come into effect for determining how much XP is needed at each level, but I don't add anything for the class itself as that just doesn't really seem to fit in D&D, imho)
ĐēşţĩŊŷ
10-15-05, 03:29 AM Uhm... Good luck. There's a whole lot of combinations for the core classes.
Jaxgaret
10-15-05, 01:54 PM To the guy who suggested a +1 or +2 LA - that is WAY WAY off.

Take a semi-scientific approach to this problem. Probably the best way to figure out an LA for this is to compare a gestalt Barbarian/Sorceror to a 20th level Cleric. Those are just about the most powerful core builds.

For instance, compare a 15th level gestalt Barb/Sorc to a 20th level cleric. They have equal BAB, barb/sorc gets 7.5 more HP from HD, Cleric gets +3/+1/+3 on saves, Cleric gets access to 9th level spells as opposed to the gestalt's getting 7th level (but sorc list is somewhat more powerful than cleric list), Barb/Sorc gets all Barb class abilities and a familiar, Cleric gets all Cleric class abilities, and finally, Cleric has 5 more HD.

I would say that that comparison is just about even... you can argue it up or down however you want. But from that, it would seem if you want to do a straight up LA (which is ridiculous, and you should probably go with the reduced XP solution stated above, but I would reduce XP gain by 33%), then I would suggest you do about a +5 LA.

Anybody feel like helping me out with my perhaps faulty thinking here?
Lord Schpungus
10-15-05, 02:04 PM Give 'em a flat LA +2, pull the stick out, and allow multiclassing. Of course MT, AH, True Necro, AT, and the like aren't allowed. It specifically says so. Sigh.
Jaxgaret
10-16-05, 01:56 AM Why are you all thinking that a +2 LA is good? Seems low to me, should be at the very least +4.
Cynlas
10-16-05, 08:29 PM Because, your Raging Barbarian is not casting any spells, or if they are casting spells, they are not applying their barbarian capabilities. Really, read the extensive notes that they published regarding the gestalts.

If the powers that be (that wrote the Gestalt rules) are making an argument for the limited increase of power, then why should I turn around and explode (or more aptly, ignore) their argument into producing a +4 minimum that you advocate for, which is positively crippling in my campaign (where the PCs must be gestalts)?

Also, why is comparing a 15 Barbarian-Sorcerer with a 20 Cleric "scientific"?

OF course a "sorcerer" who is gaining a Barbarian HD is going to have more HP than a Sorcerer or even a Sorcerer-Fighter. So what? IF they are really a barabrian, they will not be sitting back in the back refusing to engage in melee, where those HP are more needed, and not quite the "edge" that it would be to a true sorcerer.

Personally, I think that limited multiclassing should be allowed, but certainly not the free system that many want. I think that if the character wants to maintian the gestalt effects of their multiple classes, then they need to declair all classes included (and how many levels) are going to comprise their Gestalt Class, at character creation, out to at least level 20. If they deviate later from this path, then they abandon their entire gestalt to multi class into a single class (base or PrC), just as a character abandons their original class to take up a new one (though can return in most cases) in the standard multiclassing rules.

Thus, the 15 Barbarian-Sorcerer could take an unplanned level of Rogue at CL 16, though it does not replace or otherwise integrate with the Barbarian-Sorcerer "class"; the character has all the abilities of a 15 "Barbarian Sorcerer"/1 Rogue (such as a BAB of +15 instead of +16).

Like the "elf" of the old "Basic D&D" boxed sets; I, as a DM, treat the gestalt classes as a single class for all effective purposes. Thus, some of the ideas of allowing "free" gestalt multiclassing (where a level of one of your gestalt components is replaced by a spontaneous level of some other class, and then re-integrating the new class into the gestalt formula), in my use and rationale for Gestalt Classes to begin with is undermined and destroys the continuity demanded by Gestalts in the first place. However, if a series of class combinations, to include PrCs, is decided upon at the commencement of the character's carrerr and training (ie at Character Creation), then it could easily be justified that the character has joined a profession/class that is intregally composed of multiple components, and the character has been training their entire career for the changes in emphasis, thereby allowing for full integration of the multiple classes to allow them to be treated as a single Gestalt Class. And if the character then, spontaneously, deviates from the "program", then they use all normal mutliclassing rules when combining their original Gestalt to a single (non-gestalt) class, as they cannot really integrate the new class into their former profession. Further, if one of the classes comprising the Gestalt is Paladin or Monk, then like either of those classes, they cannot return to their Gestalt class after leaving it for another.

ANyway, back to the question at hand; I have no problem crippling a player who chooses a Race with an absurd LA like +4 or +6 (and is why I no longer have any problems with 1/2 Celestials or 1/2 Dragons overpopulating my parties...), but it doesn't fit, in regards to applying it to a Class (which under D&D concepts, should never have an LA to begin with), especially when everyone is a Gestalt (to include the NpCs). The only time an adjustment is really needed is when dealing with animals and other critters who do not advance by Class (what are they gonna do, be gestalt Dire Wolf-Dire Wolf?), and therefore it is far more effective for me to handle it on "my" end of things, than on the player's end.

And, again, as the circumstance of the Gestalt as being overpowered in comparison to its enviroment is limited, as it only applies to certain circumstances, there is no real game reason for anything more than a +2. If the PC were the ONLY gestalts in the world, then you could probably convince me that something higher might be warranted, but as is, it is too much.
zamil77
10-16-05, 11:20 PM I am running a game very soon. I am allowing Gestalt characters. There are two things that I have done to balance them well enough with the other characters.

1.) Take the XP chart, right, and multiply the whole thing by 1.5. This will determine when you get your new feats, statistical points, and what your max ranks can be.

2.) In order to make sure that the hit points dont fall off too traumatically, the constitution modifier is added into hit points 1.5 times. If they have no consitution mod, or if it is a negative modifier...nevermind.

Multiclassing is allowed, but only for one class at a time. PrCs are allowed, but only for one class at a time. Classes such as Mystic Theurge, Fahlucan Lyrist, True Necromancer, would not be redundant. One can take them, but they do NOT get redundant casting levels. Mystic Theurge would become a very stupid choice for a Gestalt character with Cleric/Wizard as the fusion, because one of the classes would end up losing its special abilities for nothing, the character would not be allowed 2 levels of casting in one class at ANY level. However, this would be a decent choice for a Cleric/Sorcerer that chose to be a True Necromancer on the Sorcerer side, because the only thing the character would lose would be his familiar going up in power and if the chracter takes Obtain Familiar, that is overcomeable.
Tyler Do'Urden
10-16-05, 11:45 PM A flat LA isn't going to work. You need to either apply an XP penalty like Whupass suggested, or come up with an alternate XP table for Gestalt characters.

See, the XP table in the PHB is based around gaining a number of experience equal to your level times 1000. To go from 1st level to 2nd level, you have to gain 1000 XP. To go from 2nd to 3rd, you have to gain 2000 XP (giving you the listed total of 3000), and so on.

A gestalt XP table could be based around 1500. Under a 1500 system, a character would reach 2nd level at 1,500 XP, 3rd at 4,500, 4th at 9,000, 5th at 15,000, and so on. You award gestalt characters XP based on the level they would be if they were single classed. Thus a 10th-level gestalt character (67,500 XP) would gain experience as if he were a 12th-level character (66,000).
A 15th-level gestalt character (157,500) would gain experience as if he were an 18th-level character (153,000)

You could even multiclass between single and gestalt if you just calculate how much XP is needed at each level, rather than just copying the totals. Suppose you had a 10th-level monk that wanted to take a level of the monk/fighter gestalt. When she gains 55,000 XP, she becomes a monk 10|monk/fighter 1. Using the gestalt advancement rules, her base attack bonus improves by +1, her base Fortitude save improves by +2, her Reflex and Will saves improve by +1, she gains the 11th-level monk class features (diamond body, greater flurry) as well as the 1st-level fighter bonus feat.
She must now gain 16,500 XP (instead of 11,000) to reach 12th level, because she is a gestalt character. Even if she takes her next level as a single class character, she must still gain gestalt experience for her current level.

That way gestalting is potent, but still pretty balanced. Every character has to make some kind of tradeoff; gestalting costs more the later you do it, so you want to do it early. However, gestalt characters take longer to hit second level, so you might want to go single to get out of that fragile first level more quickly.

The best thing to do with this sort of modification is playtest with a campaign you wouldn't mind destroying. Run a published adventure or something. If you find that gestalting is too powerful or too easy, increase the XP base to 2000 and try again.
Jaxgaret
10-18-05, 01:17 AM And, again, as the circumstance of the Gestalt as being overpowered in comparison to its enviroment is limited, as it only applies to certain circumstances, there is no real game reason for anything more than a +2. If the PC were the ONLY gestalts in the world, then you could probably convince me that something higher might be warranted, but as is, it is too much.

Dude, your last sentence is EXACTLY what the guy is trying to do, thank you for agreeing with me! :D
strumbleduck
10-18-05, 06:01 AM There's no basic difference between a LA and an XP penalty. A +2 LA and a 50% XP penalty have almost exactly the same effect: you will always be about two levels behind the other characters. (It also has the same effect to double the XP needed for each level, or to award experience for monsters as if they were two challenge ratings easier.)

I'd say a +3 LA sounds about right. A Mystic Theurge is basically a gestalt wizard/cleric, and he ends up three levels behind in both spellcasting progressions. You could argue that a gestalt wizard/cleric is better than a Mystic Theurge, but I don't think the difference is a whole level's worth.

Along the same lines, it seems like a fighter 2/wizard 5/eldritch knight 3 is about as good as a 7th-level gestalt fighter/wizard.

If you like XP penalties better, a +3 LA is about the same as giving out only 1/3 as much experience as normal.
strumbleduck
10-18-05, 07:09 AM Based on the notes in UA, which encourages an "off the books" type of adjustment, simply has you upping the CR of the encounters by a point or two.

Yes. Along the same lines, if you wanted to play an all-bugbear campaign (bugbears have CR 2), you would only have to up the CR of encounters by 2 to provide a challenge.

But bugbears in a mixed party have ECL +3 (since they have LA +1). This is mostly because a 5th-level bugbear in a mixed party gets to have much better equipment than a 5th-level character. (In fact, he gets 8th-level equipment.)

This is the main reason that most monsters have higher ECL than CR.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
jagggar 10-12-05, 05:40 PM	Yes, yes, I know what comes next. Two or three posts talking about how Gestalt is a campaign variant and how no two gestalts are the same power-level. My idea is to give each of the gestalts based on the core PHB classes its own LA. The class would have to be followed all 20 levels, no multi-classing out of gestalt, no Sorcerer 20//Fighter 10/Barbarian10, no PrCs.
Grizzled Gryphon 10-13-05, 11:51 AM	Umm, good luck with that.
00_Whupass 10-13-05, 02:35 PM	If you want to mix gestalt and normal characters ,which as you predicted I vehemently oppose, I would handle it like 2nd edition multiclassing. 2nd edition multiclassing is the inspiration for the gestalt campaign option, therefore we can look to that mechanic for considerations as to how to balance the mix of gestalt and non gestalt. In 2nd ed the XP earned by your character was reduced by a factor detirmined by the number of classes you had, 2 classes 50% xp penalty, 3 classes 66% xp penalty. Therefore since gestalt characters always have 2 sides I would rule a 50% xp penalty. While I understand that due to the limitations on actions taken in a round the gestalt is not truely twice as powerful as a normal character, however I feel that anything less than a 50% xp penalty would be an insufficent to deter a player from playing a gestalt instead of a traditional character. LA is, I feel, a completely inadequate solution to the problem. A LA is a one time adjustment to account for a static difference in character abilities. For instance a LA from a race, or template accounts for the abilities granted by that race or template at the time they are aquired, these bonuses are static and do not increase as time progresses thus a one time LA is the appropriate mechanic. However, in the case of intermixing gestalt and standard characters the power gap between the gestalt and the standard character is not a static gap, but rather a gulf that widens as the character levels, which is why an XP penalty is a far better solution as it scales with the character.
Cynlas 10-15-05, 03:15 AM	While not the direction I have chosen for my campaign, if you are going to, then I'd have to say no more than a +1 or +2 LA, as the DM notes in UA seem to suggest that the increased power is not really that significant. Based on the notes in UA, which encourages an "off the books" type of adjustment, simply has you upping the CR of the encounters by a point or two. As to determining which LA any given combo should have, well; perhaps a +1 where the two classes are closely related, or there is significant overlap (like a Cleric-Paladin), but a +2 for those classes where there is no significant overlap, and where there is major optiminization and weakness coverage (like a Fighter-Mage). I've sidestepped the issue in my campaign as I did away with level-based XP, so CRs and LAs don't mean much beyond character creation (ECL/LA ratings do come into effect for determining how much XP is needed at each level, but I don't add anything for the class itself as that just doesn't really seem to fit in D&D, imho)
ĐēşţĩŊŷ 10-15-05, 03:29 AM	Uhm... Good luck. There's a whole lot of combinations for the core classes.
Jaxgaret 10-15-05, 01:54 PM	To the guy who suggested a +1 or +2 LA - that is WAY WAY off. Take a semi-scientific approach to this problem. Probably the best way to figure out an LA for this is to compare a gestalt Barbarian/Sorceror to a 20th level Cleric. Those are just about the most powerful core builds. For instance, compare a 15th level gestalt Barb/Sorc to a 20th level cleric. They have equal BAB, barb/sorc gets 7.5 more HP from HD, Cleric gets +3/+1/+3 on saves, Cleric gets access to 9th level spells as opposed to the gestalt's getting 7th level (but sorc list is somewhat more powerful than cleric list), Barb/Sorc gets all Barb class abilities and a familiar, Cleric gets all Cleric class abilities, and finally, Cleric has 5 more HD. I would say that that comparison is just about even... you can argue it up or down however you want. But from that, it would seem if you want to do a straight up LA (which is ridiculous, and you should probably go with the reduced XP solution stated above, but I would reduce XP gain by 33%), then I would suggest you do about a +5 LA. Anybody feel like helping me out with my perhaps faulty thinking here?
Lord Schpungus 10-15-05, 02:04 PM	Give 'em a flat LA +2, pull the stick out, and allow multiclassing. Of course MT, AH, True Necro, AT, and the like aren't allowed. It specifically says so. Sigh.
Jaxgaret 10-16-05, 01:56 AM	Why are you all thinking that a +2 LA is good? Seems low to me, should be at the very least +4.
Cynlas 10-16-05, 08:29 PM	Because, your Raging Barbarian is not casting any spells, or if they are casting spells, they are not applying their barbarian capabilities. Really, read the extensive notes that they published regarding the gestalts. If the powers that be (that wrote the Gestalt rules) are making an argument for the limited increase of power, then why should I turn around and explode (or more aptly, ignore) their argument into producing a +4 minimum that you advocate for, which is positively crippling in my campaign (where the PCs must be gestalts)? Also, why is comparing a 15 Barbarian-Sorcerer with a 20 Cleric "scientific"? OF course a "sorcerer" who is gaining a Barbarian HD is going to have more HP than a Sorcerer or even a Sorcerer-Fighter. So what? IF they are really a barabrian, they will not be sitting back in the back refusing to engage in melee, where those HP are more needed, and not quite the "edge" that it would be to a true sorcerer. Personally, I think that limited multiclassing should be allowed, but certainly not the free system that many want. I think that if the character wants to maintian the gestalt effects of their multiple classes, then they need to declair all classes included (and how many levels) are going to comprise their Gestalt Class, at character creation, out to at least level 20. If they deviate later from this path, then they abandon their entire gestalt to multi class into a single class (base or PrC), just as a character abandons their original class to take up a new one (though can return in most cases) in the standard multiclassing rules. Thus, the 15 Barbarian-Sorcerer could take an unplanned level of Rogue at CL 16, though it does not replace or otherwise integrate with the Barbarian-Sorcerer "class"; the character has all the abilities of a 15 "Barbarian Sorcerer"/1 Rogue (such as a BAB of +15 instead of +16). Like the "elf" of the old "Basic D&D" boxed sets; I, as a DM, treat the gestalt classes as a single class for all effective purposes. Thus, some of the ideas of allowing "free" gestalt multiclassing (where a level of one of your gestalt components is replaced by a spontaneous level of some other class, and then re-integrating the new class into the gestalt formula), in my use and rationale for Gestalt Classes to begin with is undermined and destroys the continuity demanded by Gestalts in the first place. However, if a series of class combinations, to include PrCs, is decided upon at the commencement of the character's carrerr and training (ie at Character Creation), then it could easily be justified that the character has joined a profession/class that is intregally composed of multiple components, and the character has been training their entire career for the changes in emphasis, thereby allowing for full integration of the multiple classes to allow them to be treated as a single Gestalt Class. And if the character then, spontaneously, deviates from the "program", then they use all normal mutliclassing rules when combining their original Gestalt to a single (non-gestalt) class, as they cannot really integrate the new class into their former profession. Further, if one of the classes comprising the Gestalt is Paladin or Monk, then like either of those classes, they cannot return to their Gestalt class after leaving it for another. ANyway, back to the question at hand; I have no problem crippling a player who chooses a Race with an absurd LA like +4 or +6 (and is why I no longer have any problems with 1/2 Celestials or 1/2 Dragons overpopulating my parties...), but it doesn't fit, in regards to applying it to a Class (which under D&D concepts, should never have an LA to begin with), especially when everyone is a Gestalt (to include the NpCs). The only time an adjustment is really needed is when dealing with animals and other critters who do not advance by Class (what are they gonna do, be gestalt Dire Wolf-Dire Wolf?), and therefore it is far more effective for me to handle it on "my" end of things, than on the player's end. And, again, as the circumstance of the Gestalt as being overpowered in comparison to its enviroment is limited, as it only applies to certain circumstances, there is no real game reason for anything more than a +2. If the PC were the ONLY gestalts in the world, then you could probably convince me that something higher might be warranted, but as is, it is too much.
zamil77 10-16-05, 11:20 PM	I am running a game very soon. I am allowing Gestalt characters. There are two things that I have done to balance them well enough with the other characters. 1.) Take the XP chart, right, and multiply the whole thing by 1.5. This will determine when you get your new feats, statistical points, and what your max ranks can be. 2.) In order to make sure that the hit points dont fall off too traumatically, the constitution modifier is added into hit points 1.5 times. If they have no consitution mod, or if it is a negative modifier...nevermind. Multiclassing is allowed, but only for one class at a time. PrCs are allowed, but only for one class at a time. Classes such as Mystic Theurge, Fahlucan Lyrist, True Necromancer, would not be redundant. One can take them, but they do NOT get redundant casting levels. Mystic Theurge would become a very stupid choice for a Gestalt character with Cleric/Wizard as the fusion, because one of the classes would end up losing its special abilities for nothing, the character would not be allowed 2 levels of casting in one class at ANY level. However, this would be a decent choice for a Cleric/Sorcerer that chose to be a True Necromancer on the Sorcerer side, because the only thing the character would lose would be his familiar going up in power and if the chracter takes Obtain Familiar, that is overcomeable.
Tyler Do'Urden 10-16-05, 11:45 PM	A flat LA isn't going to work. You need to either apply an XP penalty like Whupass suggested, or come up with an alternate XP table for Gestalt characters. See, the XP table in the PHB is based around gaining a number of experience equal to your level times 1000. To go from 1st level to 2nd level, you have to gain 1000 XP. To go from 2nd to 3rd, you have to gain 2000 XP (giving you the listed total of 3000), and so on. A gestalt XP table could be based around 1500. Under a 1500 system, a character would reach 2nd level at 1,500 XP, 3rd at 4,500, 4th at 9,000, 5th at 15,000, and so on. You award gestalt characters XP based on the level they would be if they were single classed. Thus a 10th-level gestalt character (67,500 XP) would gain experience as if he were a 12th-level character (66,000). A 15th-level gestalt character (157,500) would gain experience as if he were an 18th-level character (153,000) You could even multiclass between single and gestalt if you just calculate how much XP is needed at each level, rather than just copying the totals. Suppose you had a 10th-level monk that wanted to take a level of the monk/fighter gestalt. When she gains 55,000 XP, she becomes a monk 10\|monk/fighter 1. Using the gestalt advancement rules, her base attack bonus improves by +1, her base Fortitude save improves by +2, her Reflex and Will saves improve by +1, she gains the 11th-level monk class features (diamond body, greater flurry) as well as the 1st-level fighter bonus feat. She must now gain 16,500 XP (instead of 11,000) to reach 12th level, because she is a gestalt character. Even if she takes her next level as a single class character, she must still gain gestalt experience for her current level. That way gestalting is potent, but still pretty balanced. Every character has to make some kind of tradeoff; gestalting costs more the later you do it, so you want to do it early. However, gestalt characters take longer to hit second level, so you might want to go single to get out of that fragile first level more quickly. The best thing to do with this sort of modification is playtest with a campaign you wouldn't mind destroying. Run a published adventure or something. If you find that gestalting is too powerful or too easy, increase the XP base to 2000 and try again.
Jaxgaret 10-18-05, 01:17 AM	And, again, as the circumstance of the Gestalt as being overpowered in comparison to its enviroment is limited, as it only applies to certain circumstances, there is no real game reason for anything more than a +2. If the PC were the ONLY gestalts in the world, then you could probably convince me that something higher might be warranted, but as is, it is too much. Dude, your last sentence is EXACTLY what the guy is trying to do, thank you for agreeing with me! :D
strumbleduck 10-18-05, 06:01 AM	There's no basic difference between a LA and an XP penalty. A +2 LA and a 50% XP penalty have almost exactly the same effect: you will always be about two levels behind the other characters. (It also has the same effect to double the XP needed for each level, or to award experience for monsters as if they were two challenge ratings easier.) I'd say a +3 LA sounds about right. A Mystic Theurge is basically a gestalt wizard/cleric, and he ends up three levels behind in both spellcasting progressions. You could argue that a gestalt wizard/cleric is better than a Mystic Theurge, but I don't think the difference is a whole level's worth. Along the same lines, it seems like a fighter 2/wizard 5/eldritch knight 3 is about as good as a 7th-level gestalt fighter/wizard. If you like XP penalties better, a +3 LA is about the same as giving out only 1/3 as much experience as normal.
strumbleduck 10-18-05, 07:09 AM	Based on the notes in UA, which encourages an "off the books" type of adjustment, simply has you upping the CR of the encounters by a point or two. Yes. Along the same lines, if you wanted to play an all-bugbear campaign (bugbears have CR 2), you would only have to up the CR of encounters by 2 to provide a challenge. But bugbears in a mixed party have ECL +3 (since they have LA +1). This is mostly because a 5th-level bugbear in a mixed party gets to have much better equipment than a 5th-level character. (In fact, he gets 8th-level equipment.) This is the main reason that most monsters have higher ECL than CR.