So I thought it would be good to have a thread with better LAs for LA races...
But i haven't played for so long that I know what LAs which would be best...
Any suggestions???
http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=9776626&postcount=3
Basically, they suggest using CR as a guideline instead of HD + LA (with a few adjustments).
other problem with the mind flayer is that the DC of mind blast is charisma-based, i just house ruled it to int in my campaign
However I DID have to strip the HD basically counting as Psion levels. It was just too crazy otherwise. That damn player kept psionic dominating all my NPCs
Is this worth a 9th level spell / slot ??
Chances are, the answer is NO. ABSOLUTELY NO.
Then you try to figure out what "level" the best ability, is most similar to.
7th level spell? 8th level spell?
Mind Flayer's (x) Blast is about the same as a 5th level psionic power (give-or-take some details).
If a Mind Flayer was a 7hd creature with it's blast power, it would be about in line with a 7th level Artificer,
(having access the 5th level spells/powers) that tried to do exactly the same thing.
So, yes the LA is too high.
Now, what LA should it be?
Ugh. That's too complicated.
Monsters start (as written in the MM books) as the equivalent of characters of [X] challenge difficulty, because of their built-in abilities, feats, hitpoints, skillpoints and so forth. Please remember folks that the creatures in the MM -also- acquire skill points, feats and saves along with the monstrous hit dice. IE: a 6 HD creature also starts with the skills, feats, and saves of a 6th level character. Tack on special abilities, and you might realize why the creatures are valued as high as they are.
However when tacking on character levels onto base creatures, you start running into problems where the character level abilities do not scale well with the rest of the party. Think of progressive character levels being worth more than the previous character level. IE: a 7th level wizard is worth more than 7 1st level wizards, correct? A single 7th level wizard is probably closer to two 4th or 5th level wizards. If you think of each character level worth an equal number of points, a first level character is worth 1 point, a second level character is worth 1+2 points, a third level character is worth 1+2+3 points... and so forth. This is not an exact number, just a general idea.
With that idea in place, a creature that starts out as a 6th level ECL would then start with character levels and would slowly be outstripped by the other party members. This idea is why LA-buyoff was suggested. Characters with a LA of 1-2 are not appreciably more powerful than a LA0 at level 20, mostly because the abilities at the beginning are not quite so useful/needed as the abilities gained at level 20. The LA character would be a little behind the non-LA character in exp to indicate that they had more power than the non-LA character in the very beginning... a benefit for people who play characters without spiffy abilities.
Another way to consider this problem is that the creature with ECL is the equivalent of a character with a ECL-level dip in an unnamed character class, along with their base character class(es). IE: Illithid with 4 monk levels would be the equivalent of Illithid15/monk4 due to the additional saves, feats, skills on top of the monk character saves, feats, and skills.
If anyone here plays with flaws, the description of flaws also indicate that the penalty should be GREATER than the benefit of a similar feat. The reason for this is that players will obviously pick flaws that minimize the impact on the character while also picking the feats that maximize the impact of the character. IE: a feat that gives +2 to will saves is better balanced by a flaw that gives -3 to reflex saves (just as a random example), since the player with a high Dex would think less of picking the flaw since he can't boost Will without sinking more points into Wis. Same idea with the monsters... Illithids have relatively weak HP, but powerful caster-like abilities, a bear might have good HP and BAB/grapple, but low will saves. Players will gladly play a creature with the built-in flaws, since they would be able to reduce the impact of those flaws via character levels, equipment, or party assistance.
I agree that many monsters do not have correct LA ratings. However, this is a DM adjudication issue, since what is weak in one campaign may not be as bad in a different campaign. IE: a creature with tremorsense and the ability to swallow whole in an above-ground diplomacy-based campaign would not be as optimal as one in an underdark hack-n-slash campaign. Most DMs either do not want to bother, or do not have the play experience with each particular creature, in order to best judge what the exact ECL hit each creature should give, and thereby trust what is printed in the book. A higher-level campaign -might- be able to argue that the LA is too high due to the relative lesser usefulness of the monster's abilities (who cares about faerie fire 3x day at level 15), but try to be honest about the relative strengths as well. -WHY- you are playing that monster instead of a human? What abilities do you want out of the deal? How important are they to your character's focus?
You can always compare the relative strengths of the creature's abilities to feats. Take a base creature (illithid), figure what abilities would make it the equivalent of a human (IE: 1 skill focus, +1 feat, 1 favored class of choice) in the current campaign, and grant the additional abilities as feats gained at levels 1, 3, 6... (IE: Illithid mind-blast 3x per day is a feat with pre-req of Cha (or Int) > 15, character level 9+). Start the creature out as ECL 0, no additional saves/feats/skills, one stat gets +2, one stat gets -2, and progress as a normal character.
Again, these are just thoughts that are to be considered. Allowing monsters as player characters is ALWAYS a DM adjudication issue. Nothing in the books say it -has- to be allowed. Then again, the DM is well within his rights to say noone can play humans, since humans are overpowered. :P
Level buy off is a possibility from unearthed arcania. Also for moderate LA's of less than 4, switching them into HD works nicely if you dont mind house ruling it. But like anything, ask your DM what he/she is willing to try.
I see the Naztharune Rakshasa(MM3) as a step in the right direction, with most of the special abilities and ability scores making it comparable to a Rogue(with a touch of Shadowdancer) of its HD+LA.
Forget Sillits. Nerra PCs are, simply put, impossible with the LA as printed.
Not really. Varoots make excellent Hunters of Evil.
Note that Fiend Folio's LAs are not what they are today; they added racial hit dice to the actual LA, which is why the entries have such ridiculously high numbers.
Actual LAs are +3 (Varoot), +3 (Kalareem, 3HD), +11 (Sillit, 7HD). Best bet is Varoot, with outsider type, decent ability scores, minor resistances/spell-likes and the fun reflective SR.
For example, an astral deva is ECL20 because (going by the definition of ECL) it is supposed to be roughly the equivalent of a lv20 PC in terms of how meaningfully it can contribute in a standard party. But this then begs the question - what sort of lv20 PC do you use as a yardstick? Some unoptimized disaster of a build like a bard/fighter multiclass? Or a properly built barbarian or warblade as a base? Depending on what sort of campaign you run, mileage varies widely.
Then, some monsters have abilities that sound rather useful on paper but come off as somewhat lackluster in actual gameplay. For instance, a ghaele has access to cure light wounds and aid usable at will. Sounds great. Your entire party can enter each combat with aid on, and so long as they survive with at least 1hp, they may as well not have been wounded at all. And indeed, this was how I played it. Then later, I realized there was this little magic item called a wand of CLW. And aid always on, while nice, wasn't really that significant (and having to constantly keep track of it could get annoying/cumbersome at times). So while still undeniably useful, it may not be worth the LA I end up paying.
I think this may be the sort of thing you need to houserule on a personal basis. Running a more relaxed game where the players don't really put much effort into optimizing their PCs? Then the LAs/ECLs are probably still reasonable. Do your players min/max more aggressively? Then perhaps the LA needs to be lowered, or done away with altogether, so ensure that the monster PC is on par with the other PCs.
If you want to play monsters, just pick one of the alternate systems afloat. I adapted Frank and K's a little bit for a campaign on BG, and the result is that I'm having a very mixed makeup. I have both heavy hitters as critters, caster critters, and no-LA full casters. It does seem that actually the casters won't dominate this game - yet. I've also nerfed polymorph but fully encouraged its use. (In fact, I think any gish will definitely have to use polymorph to compete.)
Have a look at my house-rules here: http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=809.0