PDA

View Full Version : Value of a Feat vs. Value of LA



Stegyre
2009-09-16, 01:32 PM
I'm still puttering away on my E6 homebrew and considering how to address the possibility LA+ races. Of course, the easiest thing to do is simply rule them out, but I'm purposefully aiming to be as player-friendly as reasonably possible, so more options = good-er. :smallwink:

Here is my thinking: hit dice for PCs, whether from character levels or otherwise, are capped at 6. (IMO, this is the fundamental E6 rule.) Apart from this, LA works as normal for determining ECL and experience necessary for each of those levels.

As the math works out, this means that each +1 of LA is worth 5,000 XP: a character with 0 LA takes 15,000 XP to reach 6th level; 1 LA (and no monster HD) takes 20,000 XP; 2 LA takes 25,000; 3 LA takes 30,000; 4 LA takes 35,000.

Since in E6, 5,000 XP is the price that a PC pays to purchase an additional feat after 6th level, this leads to the obvious balancing question and thread topic, "Which is better, a feat or the benefits obtained from the +1 LA?"

I know, some feats are priceless and some are worthless, just as some LA races are much better than others. Since players will tend to optimize, however, please assume that we are weighing a good but not invaluable feat (as invaluable feats will be acquired during the six-level progression, if at all possible) versus a good-or-better LA.

What thinketh ye, GitPers?

Eloel
2009-09-16, 01:36 PM
LA beats feats - if only for the stat adjustments. Mineral Warrior (+1 LA) gets +4 Con. There's no feat that grants you adjustments to stats.

woodenbandman
2009-09-16, 01:38 PM
^ I disagree. Having Shock Trooper and Pounce in an E6 game is incredible. Or in any game, really. Further, most LA isn't balanced against normal characters or itself.

Eloel
2009-09-16, 01:40 PM
^ I disagree. Having Shock Trooper and Pounce in an E6 game is incredible. Or in any game, really. Further, most LA isn't balanced against normal characters or itself.

LA1 only delays your feat-combo by 5000xp, it doesn't kick you 3 levels back like it would (if you bought LA with feat) in normal 3.5

quick_comment
2009-09-16, 01:48 PM
LA beats feats - if only for the stat adjustments. Mineral Warrior (+1 LA) gets +4 Con. There's no feat that grants you adjustments to stats.

+4 con is basically just improved toughness twice. So its equal to two not very good feats.

Compare +4 con to quicken spell or adaptive style.

Oslecamo
2009-09-16, 01:53 PM
+4 con is basically just improved toughness twice. So its equal to two not very good feats.

Compare +4 con to quicken spell or adaptive style.

One is only usefull to one class, the other can hardly be used at E6. I'll take the +4 con plus burrow speed plus high DR any time of the day.

Also con increases fort saves, so it's actually two weack feats and one ok feat, plus making you harder to kill from poison drain.

Mongoose87
2009-09-16, 02:07 PM
One is only usefull to one class, the other can hardly be used at E6. I'll take the +4 con plus burrow speed plus high DR any time of the day.

Also con increases fort saves, so it's actually two weack feats and one ok feat, plus making you harder to kill from poison drain.

It also boosts your concentration, adding another weak feat in there.

Eloel
2009-09-16, 02:14 PM
And it +2s your DCs with breath weapons (DFA or Dragonborn). Do I hear Ability Focus added in?

nightwyrm
2009-09-16, 02:24 PM
Depends on whether you're a caster or a melee.

Stegyre
2009-09-16, 02:33 PM
Thanks for the comments, please keep them coming. :smallsmile:


LA beats feats - if only for the stat adjustments. Mineral Warrior (+1 LA) gets +4 Con. There's no feat that grants you adjustments to stats.

In E6, you can usually purchase a +1 ability increase for the same price as a feat, so +4 Con. is essentially the value of 4 feats, though in most cases, I think an attribute increase would be considered a very low-value feat.

I'm not familiar with Mineral Warrior. Is that an extreme example, or do we have other examples from good-to-better LA races?

Ernir
2009-09-16, 03:28 PM
I'm not familiar with Mineral Warrior. Is that an extreme example, or do we have other examples from good-to-better LA races?

Mineral Warrior is on the "very powerful" end as far as templates go.

Stegyre
2009-09-16, 03:50 PM
Mineral Warrior is on the "very powerful" end as far as templates go.
Then it seems that perhaps the problem is that Mineral Warrior should be a +2 LA race, rather than +1?

This is by no means a closed question. Taking just the Mineral Warrior as an example, would advocates of that race (over the extra feat) still have the same response if Mineral Warrior were raised to a +2 LA?

And what other problematic LA races are out there?

ericgrau
2009-09-16, 04:31 PM
An LA is usually much better than a feat. There are some splatbook feats that are way overpowered exceptions, but you can only take those once. You'd have to be desperately short on feats to take one over an LA. Or just take a level of fighter and get a feat, HP, BAB and saves for the same cost as an LA.

Stegyre
2009-09-16, 06:16 PM
Very well (and thank you), how about this approach: for the post-6th level feats (still talking E6, of course), each LA+ increases the feat cost by 20%:

LA 0: feat costs 5,000 XP
LA 1: feat costs 6,000 XP
LA 2: 7,000 XP
LA 3: 8,000 XP
LA 4: 9,000 XP

Essentially, this is following another type of pattern: an LA 0 E6 character pays the same amount of experience to earn a post-6th feat as he did to reach 6th level (5,000 XP); LA+ characters, instead of paying the same 5,000 XP flat rate now pay the same amount as their 6th character level (not ECL).

For our existing Mineral Warrior, this means that an LA0 race will have one additional feat by the time MW reaches 6th level and gain one more bonus feat for every five the MW gains. For an LA+2 race, the LA0 gains two additional feats, plus two bonus feats for every 5 of the LA+2 race; etc. In the extreme case, by the time an LA4 race had 10 post-6th feats, an LA0 race would have 22.

Does this make LA+ races better, worse, or about the same as LA 0 races?

Godskook
2009-09-16, 07:04 PM
How many 'extra' feats are your characters typically running around with?

Generally, though that's going to just delay the issue to farther into the campaign. After 30k xp, the LA +1 costs about a feat, but at 60k xp, it costs 2, and the cost keeps growing over time.

Mongoose87
2009-09-16, 07:08 PM
How many 'extra' feats are your characters typically running around with?

Generally, though that's going to just delay the issue to farther into the campaign. After 30k xp, the LA +1 costs about a feat, but at 60k xp, it costs 2, and the cost keeps growing over time.

Mayhaps there should be a 1000xp cost increase on a number of feats equal to 5xLA

Stegyre
2009-09-16, 07:22 PM
How many 'extra' feats are your characters typically running around with?
After around 20 extra feats (that's post-6th level), the potential of E6 characters tends to level off: you've run out of "really good" feats for a particular build and even taken a number that, while nice, are more for flavor than effect, so I tend to look at that point.

An LA0 character will reach that point at 115,000 XP.
Using the new proposal, an LA1 character will take 140,000 XP.
LA2 will take 165,000 XP.
LA3, 190,000.
LA4, 215,000.


Generally, though that's going to just delay the issue to farther into the campaign. After 30k xp, the LA +1 costs about a feat, but at 60k xp, it costs 2, and the cost keeps growing over time.Not sure that I follow you. The LA1 costs a feat at 20k: at that point, an LA0 has one more feat than the LA1 does. The LA1 costs 2 at 50k; 3 at 80k; and one more every 30k thereafter.

In a one-shot or short campaign, the LA+ would clearly be better (at least, based on our Mineral Warrior example). Maybe the refinement of my question should be, "At what point does the LA+ reach parity with LA0?" It's ahead at one feat; maybe still ahead at 2; probably reaching parity at 3; definitely at parity by 4 (because the LA0 character could simply take +4 con. for his four extra feats).

Olo Demonsbane
2009-09-16, 07:59 PM
I like how the creator does it...he uses reduced point buys for the higher LA. I dont know them all off the top of my head...

LA 0: 36
LA 1: 28
...
LA 4: 0

It usually means that if you want high stats, you should go for a human.

Godskook
2009-09-16, 08:15 PM
Not sure that I follow you. The LA1 costs a feat at 20k: at that point, an LA0 has one more feat than the LA1 does. The LA1 costs 2 at 50k; 3 at 80k; and one more every 30k thereafter.

At 30K:

LA +0 has 6 feats
LA +1 has 5 feats

Thus, the cost of taking the LA +1 is exactly '1 feat' at the 30k mark. However, it keeps growing because if you repeat that for each +30k, a new feat cost shows up. Essentially, you're penalizing them an unspecified amount based more on the length of the game than the power of their build. For short length games, it might work, but over a long haul, I'd say no. If you stick to a flat XP cost for the LA, you'll solve the problem in both the short and long run.


In a one-shot or short campaign, the LA+ would clearly be better (at least, based on our Mineral Warrior example). Maybe the refinement of my question should be, "At what point does the LA+ reach parity with LA0?" It's ahead at one feat; maybe still ahead at 2; probably reaching parity at 3; definitely at parity by 4 (because the LA0 character could simply take +4 con. for his four extra feats).

Perhaps start at what it normally costs to buy LA off?

Tyndmyr
2009-09-16, 09:08 PM
Taking a somewhat different, albeit subjective approach. How many feats would it take for you to take them instead of a level?

We've got hit dice, skills, feats, bab progression, increased saves and class features. Lets take a weaker class for comparison, fighter.

Half the levels have a bonus feat. So, thats .5 feats right there. It appears you gain roughly 3 to saves for every 2 levels. Given that +2 to a save is a feat, that's what, .75 feats per level, or something close to that. Hit points...those are tougher. There just aren't really any good hit die boosting feats I can think of, and stuff like toughness are obviously inferior choices. I'd consider the loss of a hit die worth at LEAST one feat, possibly more. Next, BaB. A weapon focus is nearly as good as this...for one weapon type. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any feats that boost flat BaB like classes do. So, two feats, perhaps. Any prestige class worth taking will be at least marginally better than fighter feats, and since taking feats instead would delay PrC progression, it's more ideal to measure against that.

All in all, we've got a class level worth about 5-6 feats. I would imagine that depending on exact level, and which class we're talking about, it would vary some, but that'd be a good baseline.

After all, +1LA = 1 class level, at least in theory.

Curmudgeon
2009-09-16, 10:52 PM
Taking a somewhat different, albeit subjective approach. How many feats would it take for you to take them instead of a level?
A Cloistered Cleric gets Knowledge plus two other domains. Each of those domains can grant a feat in addition to their spells. And the Knowledge domain can be swapped for the Knowledge Devotion feat. So 1 level of Cloistered Cleric can give you 3 feats from their domains, plus 1/3 of a feat because of the standard feat allotment, plus base Cloistered Cleric spells, plus domain spells, plus undead turn attempts, plus the base class benefits (saves and the like).

So I would easily prefer 1 level of Cloistered Cleric in place of 4 feats, and maybe still would go for the level instead of 5 feats.

Doug Lampert
2009-09-17, 12:40 AM
Half the levels have a bonus feat. So, thats .5 feats right there. It appears you gain roughly 3 to saves for every 2 levels. Given that +2 to a save is a feat, that's what, .75 feats per level, or something close to that. Hit points...those are tougher. There just aren't really any good hit die boosting feats I can think of, and stuff like toughness are obviously inferior choices. I'd consider the loss of a hit die worth at LEAST one feat, possibly more. Next, BaB. A weapon focus is nearly as good as this...for one weapon type. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any feats that boost flat BaB like classes do. So, two feats, perhaps. Any prestige class worth taking will be at least marginally better than fighter feats, and since taking feats instead would delay PrC progression, it's more ideal to measure against that.

You forgot that a HD also adds stuff that everyone gets with increased HD in addition to adding class features, so a fighter HD adds an additional 1/3rd of a feat and 1/4th of an ability point. Those two combined are worth another 1/2 feat or so each level.

The problem I see is that E6 is DESIGNED to largely level off and greatly slow power progression after level 6; that's a major part of the point, and a LA race that's at ECL6 is supposedly equal to a level 6 character, he should level off and slow in advancement ALSO at that point. If he's allowed to get to ECL 7+ he's overpowered for the system.

I'd ancor LA races to no more than ECL 6, same as the LA 0 races. It sucks, but you're playing a high powered race in a system that's deliberately supposed to be low powered.

Stegyre
2009-09-17, 01:32 AM
So I would easily prefer 1 level of Cloistered Cleric in place of 4 feats, and maybe still would go for the level instead of 5 feats.
Depends upon the level, doesn't it? For example, the initial cleric level is very powerful (cloistered, even more so, as you've just demonstrated). A higher level in a lower-tier class, not so much.

Taking a somewhat different, albeit subjective approach. How many feats would it take for you to take them instead of a level?

. . . .

After all, +1LA = 1 class level, at least in theory.
An interesting perspective, but it seems pretty clear that the theory is not supportable. One class level is approximately the price of an LA, but clearly not the value of it.

First, an LA does not cost a whole level unless you happen to be playing a very short, very low-level game. Look at this progression:
{TABLE]Level|LA0|LA1|LA2|LA3|LA4
1|0|0|0|0
2|1,000|2,000|3,000|4,000|5,000
3|3,000|5,000|7,000|9,000|11,000
4|6,000|9,000|12,000|15,000|18,000
5|10,000|14,000|18,000|22,000|26,000
6|15,000|20,000|25,000|30,000|35,000[/TABLE]
LA1 is slightly less than the cost of one level: it is always next level -1,000 XP. An LA1 character can reach the same level as her LA0 compatriots, she’s just consistently late.
LA2, rather than costing two levels, is only slightly more expensive than one level: at level 2, LA2 costs exactly one level, and the cost increases by +1,000 XP each level thereafter. Because the level cost for LA0 characters is also increasing at the same rate, an LA0 characters are consistently one level ahead of an LA2 character and within 3,000 XP of their second level.
LA3 costs two levels at level 4. Thereafter, LA0 characters are consistently two levels and within 6,000 XP of their third level.
From 3rd level, LA4 costs slightly more than two levels. LA0 characters are consistently two levels and within 4,000 XP of their third level.
So as I say, the theory that LA1 = 1 class level is only a very rough approximation.

Second, we’re actually closer to the real question when we look at what +1LA is worth. Looking at what a class level is worth is actually a one-step remove from that. I think the analysis the earlier posters did of the Mineral Warrior is closer to the assessment: we have a +4 con. bonus, which is the equivalent of two improved toughness feats, plus the great fortitude feat, plus probably another feat to account for the skill bump (~4 feats); in E6, where we could buy +4 con. for the same price as 4 feats, we get the same answer; plus there are apparently burrowing and DR. (I don’t know how much, but based only on this very vague description, another 2 feats should probably be added.) So in this case, LA1 is worth about 6 feats, but the value for another LA1 race may be notably different (and likely lower).

At 30K:

LA +0 has 6 feats
LA +1 has 5 feats

Thus, the cost of taking the LA +1 is exactly '1 feat' at the 30k mark.
Not quite. You’ve left out the extra feat the LA0 character picks up at 20k, while the LA1 character is finally reaching 6th level. After that, the LA0 character moves ahead by one feat every 30k.


However, it keeps growing because if you repeat that for each +30k, a new feat cost shows up. Essentially, you're penalizing them an unspecified amount based more on the length of the game than the power of their build. For short length games, it might work, but over a long haul, I'd say no. If you stick to a flat XP cost for the LA, you'll solve the problem in both the short and long run.
Yes, that is exactly what happens: an LA+ character starts stronger than LA0 ones and will gradually become weaker. That is the trade-off. Mind you, based on other comments, it looks like this would be far too slow, and most other posters would say that the balance still weighs much more heavily in favor of the LA+ races.

Perhaps start at what it normally costs to buy LA off?
A possibility. Since E6 already gives a price for feats (5,000 XP), this is actually just another method of calculating the exchange rate between feats and LA.

If I correctly understand the formula, the cost of buying off LA adjustments is as follows:
{table]LA1|LA2|LA3|LA4
3,000|16,000|45,000|N.A.[/TABLE]
(An LA4 character can only buy off one LA.)
To these numbers, we should add the additional experience cost for leveling, which is 5,000 * LA:
{table]LA1|LA2|LA3|LA4
8,000|26,000|60,000|N.A.[/TABLE]
The problem I’m seeing is that, at LA1, the cost seems much too low for the value of the example we’re already looking at (Mineral Warrior): 8,000 XP is less than the cost of two feats for something that’s clearly worth more than twice that amount. At the other end of the scale, I’m wondering whether any LA3 races are worth 12 feats. (Maybe. Perhaps that’s getting close to an accurate evaluation.)

I like how the creator does it...he uses reduced point buys for the higher LA.
Yeah, I’m familiar with that, too. I’m just playing around with things to see what else might work, or if anything may work better. Again, this really amounts to another way of calculating the exchange rate, as E6 already values each attribute point at the cost of one feat. When I have the time (and it’s not after midnight, I’ll see if I can’t dig out their original musings.

The problem I see is that E6 is DESIGNED to largely level off and greatly slow power progression after level 6; that's a major part of the point, and a LA race that's at ECL6 is supposedly equal to a level 6 character, he should level off and slow in advancement ALSO at that point. If he's allowed to get to ECL 7+ he's overpowered for the system.

I'd anchor LA races to no more than ECL 6, same as the LA 0 races. It sucks, but you're playing a high powered race in a system that's deliberately supposed to be low powered.
Very true about the basic premise of E6. The main reason I’m exploring allowing a higher ECL is that six character levels also feels like a bare minimum to develop an interesting character. If an LA4 race were limited to two character levels, I suspect no one would play such a race, and even LA3 or 2 leave hardly any room for development.

It goes back to the balance issue: I’m trying to see if we can reach an accommodation where a player is essentially neutral between taking an LA0 race versus an LA+ race. With my current proposals, the balance seems too much in favor of the LA+ races. With the ECL6 limit, however, I think it weighs too much against taking an LA+ race.

Thank you for all of the comments. Please keep them coming.