Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Joe Outside 09-22-06, 04:51 AM	My friend and I were discussing our gripes with the way level adjustment works and how much difficulty it has caused in past campaigns when I had an inspiration: rather than level adjustment causing a character's ECL to increase, what if we were to manifest it in a different way, say, a penalty to experience earned? Similar functionality would occur (the character with the level adjustment would progress slower than those without level adjustments), a lot of rules vaguaries that have been argued over in our group would go away (such as where epic progression begins and where and how LAs interact with gestalt) and it would be easier for powerful races to start with first level campaigns. After short discussion, we concluded that a 5% XP penalty per point of level adjustment would be about appropriate, though we haven't run any numbers to back this up. Races with Hit Dice would still apply those racial hit dice to their characters, of course, though savage progressions would be highly probable. Now, after congratulating ourselves on coming up with a functional and logical house rule, both my friend and I concluded that before playtesting the concept we should run the idea past all you folks here to point out the holes in our logic. So please, tell us what you think.
Norr 09-22-06, 06:41 PM	I see one problem with this. LA is added to HD to adjust the ECL to match the relative power level of a character of equal level. If you take away the LA to ECL, it would mean creatures (like the drow) would be more powerful than their level would indicate at lower levels, which might not be very popular with other party members. However, a solution to this 'problem' would be to remove some abilities that warrant a LA (how many depending on the LA, of course) and have the character gain them when they reach a certain level. As an example, the catfolk from RotW has +4 dex, +2 cha and +1 natural armor (no racial HD). To use this house rule, you could give him +2dex, +2cha, +0 NA and a 5% exp penalty. When he reaches 2nd lvl, his racial bonus to dex becomes +4 and his NA +1, as usual for an adult catfolk. How does this sound?
Joe Outside 09-22-06, 09:53 PM	That's definitely a thought. I'll show that to my friend when I see him tomorrow and see what he thinks.
Dekion Acheronus 09-22-06, 10:40 PM	I hate to say it, but the penalty would be closer to 10% per LA. In order for a LA +1 character to reach level 20 they would need 210,000 XP, 20,000 more than a LA +0 character. 20,000 divided by the 190,000 needed for a normal level 20 would equal 10.53% more XP. Likewise a LA +2 would need 231,000 XP, 41,000 more than a normal level 20, or 21.58% more XP. +3 is 63,000 more, or 33.16%. +4, 45.26%...etc. As we know, all LA are not "fair" or "equal" so it's up to you, of course.
Joe Outside 09-23-06, 01:51 AM	Thank you thankyouthankyouthankyou for working those numbers for me! My initial thought was 10% but math has never been a strong suit of mine. I'm going to call my friend's attention to this and see what he thinks.
Norr 09-23-06, 07:22 AM	Remember one thing about those number though, 10% extra xp needed/level is not the same as a 10% xp penalty. As an example, say you have a +5 LA and is 1st lvl. normally you would need 1000xp to reach 2nd lvl. If you need 50% more xp to advance a level you would need 1000 x 50% = 1500xp. However, if you have a 50% xp penalty you cut all xp gains in half, meaning you need 2000xp to advance to level 2. If we use the first example, this character would stay at a level roughly equal to 2/3ds the level of the party. When the rest of the party is 20th level, this character would be at lvl 13 or 14, a bit less than its LA would indicate. However, if we give him a 50% xp penalty, he will always be at 1/2 the partys level. A lvl 10 char in a lvl 20 party. If we do these calculations with a 5% xp adjustment instead, the +5 LA character would behave something like this: 25% more xp required to lvl up: 1250 xp for 2nd lvl. In a lvl 20 party he would be 1/5th behind party lvl , making him lvl 16, a good tradeoff since abilities that warrant a LA often becomes less useful or pronounced at higher lvls. 25% xp penalty: he will always stay at 25% of the partys level, this means he will be lvl 15 in a 20th level party, exactly what his LA would indicate. Conclusion: I think you should use the 5% xp adjustment, wether its a penalty or an increased xp req. Of course, my math may be bonkers, but this is what I think.
Joe Outside 09-24-06, 02:29 PM	Thanks all, I got my friend to read all the replies and after some discussion, we agreed that 5% per point of LA sounded closer to right and would be what we would playtest first. As the playtest progresses, I'll post our findings.
Dekion Acheronus 09-24-06, 04:36 PM	Norr, I apologize, but your penalty math is flawed. A 50% penalty would not have the character at half the party's level. This would only be the case if the XP requirements were the same for each level. At level 20, 190,000 XP, the LA +5 character would have 95,000 XP and be level 14 with 28.5% of the xp needed to reach level 15. A little more of a penalty than is "deserved," but close, and with the higher penatly at earlier levels it will offset the characters more unbalanced power at lower levels. If you go with 5% penaly per LA, when the other characters reach 20, 190,000 XP, the LA +5 will have 142,500 XP and be level 17 with 61.77% of the xp needed to reach level 18. This effectively cuts the LA in half. The best way would require a fairly complex formula resulting in a decreasing or increaing penalty per level depending upon where you wanted the character most penalized. In any case, go with what you like and feel is most fair.