Possible ideas for LA/RHD fix?

[gr8artist]

Anyone know a good way to balance one player's LA and Racial Hit-Dice by giving the others NPC levels? Then everyone could just level together. The players getting NPC levels would need more bonus levels and gear than the LA/RHD players, though.
Soo, I'm thinking a 1st level party including 1 monster race (+1 LA, 1 RHD) would go something like this:
Base characters: 3 NPC levels, 1 class level.
Monster character: 1 LA, 1 RHD, 1 class level.
The base characters would get 50% more "bonus" levels than the monster characters. Base characters would also get the starting wealth for a character one level higher than their class level.

[rockdeworld]

Considering that in a regular campaign, the characters in your campaign would look more like this:
Base characters: 3 class levels.
Monster character: 1 LA, 1 RHD, 1 class level.

You're actually making LA and RHD a lot stronger. In many cases (ie. the ones where RHD and LA are actually worth it), this doesn't fix the problem, it exacerbates it.

I don't recommend this system. However, there is one that I do like (and haven't tested) here (http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=33294). Scroll down (or Ctrl+F) until you see Powerful Races.

[gr8artist]

I think one of us is confused. I might not be understanding your statement properly, but here's a comparison.

Normal build, 3rd level
Normal: 3 class levels (3 HD total)
Monster: 1 LA, 1 RHD, 1 class level (2 HD total) (buyoff at later levels)

Proposed build, 3rd level
Normal: 3 NPC levels, 3 class levels (6 HD total)
Monster: 1 LA, 1 RHD, 3 class levels (4 HD total) (no buyoff later on)

Since the LA itself gets you nothing, just costs levels, and the RHD is little better than an NPC class level, it seems like my system buffs the normal characters without letting the monsters start too strong or fall behind later.

[rockdeworld]

You're right, that's not the idea I got from your OP.

So for a hard-and-fast example, suppose I wanted to play a Gloura. It's ECL 9 (+2 LA and 7 RHD). We're starting at level 1, and I get a Gloura Bard 1.

By your system, the rest of the party gets 14 NPC levels and 1 class level. So they pick Adept for +7 BAB and 4th level spells.

Now the Gloura Bard 1 is casting spells (and has HP) as a 8th level Bard, and the rest of the party can cast Polymorph with CL14. And they're a first level party. As a 10th level party, they're a bit more reasonable, but whereas the Gloura Bard 1 is made to be a 10th level character (and I've actually seen Glouras in play), Adept 14 is not. It's overpowered on its Polymorphing CL and doesn't have a lot else going for it unless you continue in the adept class, which your characters may not want to do.

Edit edit: Actually, brokenness aside, that doesn't seem like a half-bad idea. The extra HD from the Adept class balances out its weaknesses (HP, BAB, saves), and by advancing it you get useful spells more quickly. Of course, that moves Adept up a tier (into the same as a Gloura Bard, perhaps) only if the other player uses a LOT of RHD and LA. 3 levels of Adept aren't going to do much for anyone.

Edit: and because I couldn't resist, what if someone wants to play a Rakshasa? They start at level 14 with straight Raksasha, but their Adept 21 counterpart can cast epic spells.

The only problem is that if I'm starting at level 10 or whatever, I want class levels, not NPC levels. The whole system just feels like a tax on the people who don't use high LA and RHD (which aren't a good idea in general), which is why I can't recommend it.

[gr8artist]

You, sir, make an excellent point. I'd never considered a high-level creature like that, and my system completely falls apart when you do.
I suppose it might work at lower levels, with just a few RHD/LA thrown around, but with anything serious it obviously doesn't.

[Kazyan]

Maybe it would be easier to leave the LA/RHD system as-is, but replace all LA with levels in Commoner (or Warrior/Expert). The biggest problem with high LA is that you lose HP, BAB, saves, and after a certain point, it gets waaaay too swingy. Pixie is about as high as LA goes before nobody wants to touch it.

Of course, you would have to spot-fix overpowered templates like Mineral Warrior to be LA+2 or whatever.

[KillianHawkeye]

I think the system would work a lot better if you disallow the spellcasting NPC class.

Perhaps make it based on what PC class the character is taking? Fighter-types get Warrior, Skill-monkeys get Expert, and Spellcasters get Commoner.

[nedz]

Also not all RHD are the same.
Monstrous Humanoid is terribad, but Outsider and Dragon are fairly good.

[rockdeworld]

Maybe it would be easier to leave the LA/RHD system as-is, but replace all LA with levels in Commoner (or Warrior/Expert).

I think the system would work a lot better if you disallow the spellcasting NPC class.

Perhaps make it based on what PC class the character is taking? Fighter-types get Warrior, Skill-monkeys get Expert, and Spellcasters get Commoner.
Unfortunately, no matter which way you go, it still makes the casting classes much better. All of them can take Practiced Spellcaster to get an instant +4 (or whatever) boost to their CL. Cleric can Turn/Rebuke Undead better. The druid's animal companion gets stronger. Not to mention it makes it impossible for the DM to legitimately try to drop a Word of Chaos/Blasphemy/any other ECL-based ability on the party except for the templated character, and anyone who takes an LA will probably be a martial character anyway (as spellcasters don't usually want to lose spell levels). So it just makes the martial/caster gap larger. That's why I recommended Frank&K's system as an alternative. It allows characters to play powerful monsters (pixies, raksasha, etc) without the rediculous LA.

[Kazyan]

Unfortunately, no matter which way you go, it still makes the casting classes much better. All of them can take Practiced Spellcaster to get an instant +4 (or whatever) boost to their CL. Cleric can Turn/Rebuke Undead better. The druid's animal companion gets stronger. Not to mention it makes it impossible for the DM to legitimately try to drop a Word of Chaos/Blasphemy/any other ECL-based ability on the party except for the templated character, and anyone who takes an LA will probably be a martial character anyway (as spellcasters don't usually want to lose spell levels). So it just makes the martial/caster gap larger. That's why I recommended Frank&K's system as an alternative. It allows characters to play powerful monsters (pixies, raksasha, etc) without the rediculous LA.

Buh? What? You can take the feat to improve your CL, but you're still losing spell levels. Turning LA into Commoner levels ignores the Blasphemy problem, and grants a degree of BAB for the melee classes. I can see how Practiced Spellcaster is more powerful than +2 BAB, but Practiced Spellcaster is more powerful than +9001 BAB, and taking a template or LA/RHD race is bad for getting spell levels anyway--casters won't usually do it.

[rockdeworld]

Buh? What? You can take the feat to improve your CL, but you're still losing spell levels. Turning LA into Commoner levels ignores the Blasphemy problem, and grants a degree of BAB for the melee classes. I can see how Practiced Spellcaster is more powerful than +2 BAB, but Practiced Spellcaster is more powerful than +9001 BAB, and taking a template or LA/RHD race is bad for getting spell levels anyway--casters won't usually do it.
Yes, that's the point. If a PC without RHD/LA is given extra levels on top of class levels, they can take Practiced Spellcaster to, eg. cast 5d4 Burning Hands at level 1.

[Kazyan]

Yes, that's the point. If a PC without RHD/LA is given extra levels on top of class levels, they can take Practiced Spellcaster to, eg. cast 5d4 Burning Hands at level 1.

Or greataxe for 1d12+6 damage, the same average without feat investment.

[limejuicepowder]

Why not just leave RHD alone, and replace all LA with (more) RHD*?

Losing X levels of BA, saves, feats, and skills makes most races unplayable, and that's a shame. It wouldn't fix everything, but it's easy and I think it would help a lot.

*this would not apply to templates.

Some races would become a little OP, but since this would almost always be helping mundanes, who cares?

[ericgrau]

A small issue there is that those with more RHD and less LA get less benefit. But most things with RHD also have a lot of LA, so at worst they only get half-shafted. And it's hard to replace RHD with a single solution, because depending on monster type one RHD might be better than another. You might use this (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/improvingMonsters.htm#advancedMonsterChallengeRati ng) as a guideline to assume each RHD is worth 1/4, 1/3 or 1/2 a level. Treat the remainder like LA and give out NPC levels accordingly. Or replace 1 or more HD with class levels, and note how much LA you eliminated with this. I might treat 1 PC level as equal to 2 NPC levels, and try to play with both so that it is both fair and so that his HD is close to but equal or less than his ECL.

As an example I'll try the centuar with 4 RHD and 2 LA. Presumably that is 4/3 of a level in RHD, and he needs half of the remaining 4-1/3 levels to be converted to half-levels (presumably equal in value to NPC levels) for a total of 3.5 levels (4/3 + 2 1/6 = 3.5). And ideally he should have close to but equal or less than 6 HD. 2 PC levels and 3 NPC levels are worth about 3.5 levels and provide 5 HD. So we give him 2 PC levels, 3 NPC levels, 1 LA (for ECL 6) and call it a day.

I've done a few comparisons before and surprisingly unchanged LA/RHD is at most half a level worse than no LA/RHD when compared to core builds. It's astoundingly close to fair in core-only, though some races could use an extra +2 to an ability score to make up for that half a level. The problem comes with power creep, which means how much you fix LA varies depending on group optimization level. So the above PC/NPC level system requires a pretty good amount of optimization in other players to be fair.

[limejuicepowder]

A small issue there is that those with more RHD and less LA get less benefit.

Generally speaking though, creatures with lots of RHD and a small LA aren't that bad, and don't need a lot of adjustment. Gnolls, bugbears, and lizardfolk all fit in to this catagory, IMO - the LA, even if it's only +1, really hurts. Converting that last LA to RHD helps a lot.


But most things with RHD also have a lot of LA, so at worst they only get half-shafted. And it's hard to replace RHD with a single solution, because depending on monster type one RHD might be better than another.

This is definitely true, all RHD are not created equal. In this system for example aasimars would be very very good - 8 skill points, great saves, best attack bonus. That's a great start for any non-casting class, and some casters wouldn't mind it so much.

3 points -
1) This is a quick and dirty fix. There are definitely going to be some outlying problems it creates, mainly because of the huge difference between the quality of the RHD.
2)It's OK for some races to be better than others. On paper a player would of course never play anything but the mechanically superior race, but in practice things are much different - players still play fighters, even though a druid's pet is generally better than him.
3)Even if this system ultimately requires a couple of patches on newly created OP races, I'd still feel this greatly narrows down the problem(s). As it stands, nearly every single race with a LA is close to unplayable. I'd rather open up 50 options and deal with 4 problems than just forget all 50 options even exist.


You might use this (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/improvingMonsters.htm#advancedMonsterChallengeRati ng) as a guideline to assume each RHD is worth 1/4, 1/3 or 1/2 a level. Treat the remainder like LA and give out NPC levels accordingly. Or replace 1 or more HD with class levels, and note how much LA you eliminated with this. I might treat 1 PC level as equal to 2 NPC levels, and try to play with both so that it is both fair and so that his HD is close to but equal or less than his ECL.

As an example I'll try the centuar with 4 RHD and 2 LA. Presumably that is 4/3 of a level in RHD, and he needs half of the remaining 4-1/3 levels to be converted to half-levels (presumably equal in value to NPC levels) for a total of 3.5 levels (4/3 + 2 1/6 = 3.5). And ideally he should have close to but equal or less than 6 HD. 2 PC levels and 3 NPC levels are worth about 3.5 levels and provide 5 HD. So we give him 2 PC levels, 3 NPC levels, 1 LA (for ECL 6) and call it a day.

I've done a few comparisons before and surprisingly unchanged LA/RHD is at most half a level worse than no LA/RHD when compared to core builds. It's astoundingly close to fair in core-only, though some races could use an extra +2 to an ability score to make up for that half a level. The problem comes with power creep, which means how much you fix LA varies depending on group optimization level. So the above PC/NPC level system requires a pretty good amount of optimization in other players to be fair.

Don't get me wrong, this does look like an interesting solution. My personal preference is to stress simplicity however, and the simplest solution has my vote.

[Darth Stabber]

If you want a good fix you could utilize gestalt rules. If you take a race that is ecl>0 you suffer no penalties, but all the other characters get X levels as gestalt levels where X is your ECL. Characters with lower non-zero ecl would get X-Y levels as gestalt where X is the highest ECL and Y is theirs. It is simple, everyone starts with the same number of levels worth of primary class features, and those that didn't pick up an oddball race get to grab some goodies from dip friendly classes.

Of course you could just do the whole thing gestalt and have the ECL count as levels on one side, and I have had pretty good success with this (though pixies are bonkers in that format)

[ericgrau]

Don't get me wrong, this does look like an interesting solution. My personal preference is to stress simplicity however, and the simplest solution has my vote.

A simpler way would be to remove X% of the LA, and to remember the RHD's value when figuring out an "effective LA". To match the above example I'll use 50%. So the centaur has 4 RHD worth 4/3 of a level and 2 LA. Again 4/3 is because each monstrous humanoid level is worth 1/3 of a level. Effectively he has 5-1/3 LA, including the other 3-1/3 effective LA from the RHD (3-1/3+4/3=4). Half of that is 2-2/3 LA. So we remove the 2 LA and for the remaining 2/3 away goes 1 RHD. So we're left with 3 RHD and 0 LA.

This assumes each level in the build is worth 2 levels in a core build, which would require some very high optimization. A more reasonable standard for many gaming groups might only remove 25% of the "effective LA".

An even simpler way but more vague way would be to consider each race on a case by case basis and decide what you think is fair. This works well for mildly optimized groups since often the only decision is whether or not to reduce the LA by 1 or to leave it alone. Then you look at the stats, consider what you think is fair for that ECL and say yay or nay. Only very high LA and RHD races would require more than 1 LA reduction in mildly optimized gaming groups.

[gr8artist]

I have to say the gestalt option sounds interesting. I've never really considered gestalt, but this would be one opportunity to dabble with it while not diving in headfirst.

[Bakkan]

The solution my group used (which is similar, though not, I think, identical to some of the proposals in this thread) was to give every character with level adjustment a number of levels in any NPC class they wished equal to the amount of their LA. This allowed the entire group to start at the same HD and made Character Level = Effective Character Level = HD in all cases.

We considered disallowing Adept, but since few characters would consider continuing to take levels in the class, it worked out to be equivlent to a weak caster multiclass in most cases.