PDA

View Full Version : Pathfinder Level Adjustment Question



subject42
2011-02-03, 01:22 PM
From what I understand after reading the source books, the PF level adjustment system basically grants you an additional "catch up level" every three levels until your remaining level adjustment equals half of the original level adjustment.

If the initial LA is +1, does that stay at 1, or does it round down to 0, following the "always round down" rule of D&D?

Sorry if this has been covered. Search didn't turn anything up.

Starbuck_II
2011-02-03, 01:28 PM
From what I understand after reading the source books, the PF level adjustment system basically grants you an additional "catch up level" every three levels until your remaining level adjustment equals half of the original level adjustment.

If the initial LA is +1, does that stay at 1, or does it round down to 0, following the "always round down" rule of D&D?

Sorry if this has been covered. Search didn't turn anything up.

Pathfinder doesn't do Level Adjustment: it does CR adjustment. But your evaluation of catch up level is right.

subject42
2011-02-03, 01:30 PM
Pathfinder doesn't do Level Adjustment: it does CR adjustment. But your evaluation of catch up level is right.

Does that mean it rounds to 0, or stays at 1, then?

Psyren
2011-02-03, 01:32 PM
Round down makes the most sense, since the reverse would mean the easiest LA to buy off (LA +1) would be impossible to buy off in PF.

Kaldrin
2011-02-03, 01:41 PM
Does that mean it rounds to 0, or stays at 1, then?

Reading the intent of diminishing returns in the rule, I'd say it becomes 0.

Marnath
2011-02-03, 02:04 PM
Pathfinder doesn't do Level Adjustment: it does CR adjustment. But your evaluation of catch up level is right.

Could you go into a bit more depth on the CR adjustment? I never really understood how it works.

Kaldrin
2011-02-03, 03:30 PM
Could you go into a bit more depth on the CR adjustment? I never really understood how it works.

Essentially as you increase levels the levels become more and more overbalanced. A single level at 12th level is far weightier in what it gives you compared to 1st level. As a result instead of increasing the level of your character artificially, the guys at Paizo decided they would measure it as impact against an encounter.

So, when the GM figures out what your party's CR is, he ups your particular level by that increased CR amount to plug in the equation. So instead of fighting a CR 5 encounter you might wind up facing a CR 7 or 8, depending on what the CR adjustment is to the characters in the party.

Starbuck_II
2011-02-03, 03:34 PM
Could you go into a bit more depth on the CR adjustment? I never really understood how it works.

Pathfinder uses CR/CR adjustment for ECL not LA + Racial HD + class level.
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/monsters/monstersAsPCs.html

The example given is a Minotaur:
CR is 4. So you can play one in a 4th level campaign.

When the group has gained 3 levels, (every one basically level 7) your minotaur gains an extra level in addition (since RHD and racial abilities give diminshing returns).
This happens up to 1+ 1/2 CR so Minotaur gains these extra class levels up to 3 times (At level 6.5[between level 6 and level 7], level 7, and level 10).
After this, no more free levels.

By CR adjustment I'm referring to templates as well.

Example would be Ogrekin: CR +1.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/templates/ogrekin-cr-1

Marnath
2011-02-03, 11:51 PM
So a Half dragon human would have a CR of 3, and need to start at Level 4 to get a character level? So you'd get bonus levels at 5.5 and 8? I'm bad at math so correct me if I have it wrong.

MeeposFire
2011-02-04, 02:56 AM
And I thought LA+racial hd+class levels was bad. This system somehow manages to be more unwieldy.

Jeraa
2011-02-04, 03:06 AM
That is because PCs arn't supposed to play monsters, so they didn't make rules allowing PCs to be monster races. The developers admit this. And using the creatures CR is only a guideline. The GM is supposed to look at the creatures abilities, and determine what level is appropriate for the monster to be a PC.

Starbuck_II
2011-02-04, 07:10 AM
So a Half dragon human would have a CR of 3, and need to start at Level 4 to get a character level? So you'd get bonus levels at 5.5 and 8? I'm bad at math so correct me if I have it wrong.

Basically, yes.
1/2 dragon is a good example where the racial stuff gets less overpowered the higher level you go.

Coidzor
2011-02-04, 07:43 AM
The GM is supposed to look at the creatures abilities, and determine what level is appropriate for the monster to be a PC.

Guidelines for that sorta thing would've been nice though.

Psyren
2011-02-04, 08:06 AM
Guidelines for that sorta thing would've been nice though.

That's asking for abuse though. No matter where they would have set the bar, someone would have either found an under-CR'ed monster to exploit it, or it would be useless 90% of the time like the WotC Monster PC rules.

Better to avoid the issue altogether when you're faced with an Unpleasable Fanbase.

true_shinken
2011-02-04, 08:19 AM
Monsters as PCs is a good idea but it shows how hard it is to implement.
3.5's system is borked in this regard because most mosters-as-players suck HARD. Even within it there are a feel gems, though (pixie and wyrmling steel dragon spring to mind).
Pathfinder's system is completely and utterly borked, though. Consider a babau, a creature I picked at random from the Pathfinder SRD. 7HD at level 6 is already an advantage, excellent stats, at will greater teleport and dispel magic, constant see invisibility, sneak attack +2d6 and telepathy. There is absolutely no way you can get close to this with another sixth level character. Babau is not equivalent to another 6th level character, period. Sure, this is a case where it's actually very easy for the DM to notice the problem, but it just raises an issue. In the end, Pathfinder's system depends too much on DM fiat and that's not how modern RPGs work, is it?

Psyren
2011-02-04, 08:39 AM
Pathfinder's system is "don't do it," then they throw out a brief notion as to how it could maybe work. Sure it's not much help, but this is actually the right approach to take. By not supporting this idea, they're ensuring that the only DMs who pursue it will be those who want it badly enough to houserule it to functionality.

Compare to WotC, who included basic rules in core, created an entire supplement based around this concept (two if you count LM), numerous online articles and web enhancements, and still utterly failed to make it work. It's an uphill battle, and all losing it accomplishes is making your designers look incompetent to your fanbase.

It HAS to be specific to each creature. HD are not enough of a guideline. CR is not enough of a guideline. LA is a horrible balancing act. Monsters are one of the most complex aspects of D&D; only a tailored solution will work, therefore the answer must be "come up with your own rules."

true_shinken
2011-02-04, 08:55 AM
Pathfinder's system is "don't do it," then they throw out a brief notion as to how it could maybe work. Sure it's not much help, but this is actually the right approach to take. By not supporting this idea, they're ensuring that the only DMs who pursue it will be those who want it badly enough to houserule it to functionality.
Sadly, we get enough people here in the forums asking about it to know it didn't work as intended.


LA is a horrible balancing act.
This is disagree with. LA, specially with LA-buyoff, is a very good idea. The way it's implemented is wonky, because LA is just "guessed". But LA is how I think monsters-as-players should be, yes. You just have to reassign LA to basically all monsters ever published (aside from pixie and wyrmling steel dragon :smalltongue:)

Psyren
2011-02-04, 09:32 AM
This is disagree with. LA, specially with LA-buyoff, is a very good idea.

Ah, but I never said the IDEA was bad. I said it was a horrible balancing act. 2 LA to one creature is still worthwhile (Karsite) yet even 1 LA to another cripples it (Blue.) Coming up with that number - or even deciding which creatures need it - for every monster that a player might want to play is very hard to do when you're pushing against a deadline. Better just to let the players do it, since we're the ones with both the inclination and free time to come up with this stuff (as evidenced by all the projects, fixes etc. in the Homebrew forum.)

So the solution to "let the community handle it" is a good one.

true_shinken
2011-02-04, 09:44 AM
So the solution to "let the community handle it" is a good one.
D&Dwiki is the proof of why this is a bad, bad idea.
Most people know nothing about game balance, care nothing about the fun of others enough to considergame balance or are just plain bad with numbers. These people are well within the community and sometimes they even write homebrew. There is a quote in someone's sig about most people not recognizing a good game even if it stripped, painted itself purple and danced on a table. I tend to agree.
We here on the forums are a minority. Many people still find Monks overpowered. You want those people deciding how many levels you need to lose to be a merfolk?

Psyren
2011-02-04, 10:05 AM
For every D&DWiki, there is a Brilliantgameologists or ENworld. Sturgeon's Law notwithstanding, I'm not a total cynic yet - cream rises to the top. :smallsmile:

Besides, those people are already deciding on LA in their games. For a designer to waste time and money on an ineffective sourcebook won't change that, and the amount of time it would take to derive a reasonable LA for every monster won't yield sufficient dividends to be worthwhile. They should pick their battles, and Monster PCs are not a battle worth throwing limited resources at. This is why I agree with Paizo's stance.

Consider the time and money it took WotC to make Savage Species; consider all the time they spent after its creation creating more savage progressions to post online. How many of those do we hear about actually being used in games/builds? How much better off would we have been if they allocated those resources to, say, playtesting/finishing ToB and ToM errata? I know which one I'd prefer.

true_shinken
2011-02-04, 10:21 AM
How much better off would we have been if they allocated those resources to, say, playtesting/finishing ToB and ToM errata? I know which one I'd prefer.
While I agree with you, you should acknowledge most of the D&D fanbase probably wouldn't. Even the guys from Paizo are not fans of Tome of Battle...
WotC was just playing to its strenghts - selling what more people want. Savage Species and the columns came because people really really wanted to play monsters - that's also why we have three 'demimonster' races in Eberron and why 4e is filled with demimonster races.

subject42
2011-02-04, 12:10 PM
So I can assume that the consensus answer here is "Nobody really knows because Paizo didn't give a formal answer, but it kinda makes sense to round down"?

Psyren
2011-02-04, 12:40 PM
While I agree with you, you should acknowledge most of the D&D fanbase probably wouldn't. Even the guys from Paizo are not fans of Tome of Battle...
WotC was just playing to its strenghts - selling what more people want. Savage Species and the columns came because people really really wanted to play monsters - that's also why we have three 'demimonster' races in Eberron and why 4e is filled with demimonster races.

That was a good short-term decision for them, but hurt them in the long run. "Give the people what they want" is not enough on its own - it must be backed up with quality. This is a harsh lesson that Sonic Team is learning all too well, as each new release gets critically panned

So we return to Paizo - a company with only a fraction of WotC's resources, tasked with the same problem: how to make monsters playable without breaking the game. How can little Timmy be a dragon, or werewolf, or vampire, and still be fair to the other players? And what level campaign would prove a challenge for him? How strong would his party have to be to keep up? Should he be allowed all the same equipment/treasure? Should towns treat him the same as any other PC? If not, what should be different?

These are all questions that only one person is equipped to answer - the DM. So Paizo wisely stayed out of it.

true_shinken
2011-02-04, 01:06 PM
These are all questions that only one person is equipped to answer - the DM. So Paizo wisely stayed out of it.
I want to agree with you, I really do. But Paizo published guidelines that lead to breakage. We all know how that sucks (what with 3.5 and custom items). Just because it's in the books, some DMs think it's a rule, and then you have the fun of a lot of people ruined because some guy decided he could play a babau in a level 6 game or something.
If you do it like the book tells you, with a DM checking stuff and the DM isn't a complete idiot and you're OK with him telling 'OK, let's nerf it' then it works fine. Then again, everything works fine within those confines. Paizo's guidelines are really borked. That much is a fact.