Dragon PCs should not have LA

[J-H]

Cross-posted from a recruitment thread where I'm making a Copper Dragon PC.

Per the Draconomicon, draconic characters should acquire more LA as they age and get larger, in addition to acquiring more Racial Hit Dice. I realize that the Copper Dragon is not the most powerful one (I think it's Gold?), but the principle is the same.

At level 20, a 20-HD (Adult) copper dragon has:
+12 str vs wyrmling
+6 con vs wyrmling
+4 int vs wyrmling
+4 int vs wyrmling
+4 cha vs wyrmling
6 skill points/level, but everything is cross-class except Bluff, Hide, and Jump.
+4 size modifier on grapple checks
good saves
12d4 acid line breath weapon - average damage is 30, useable 1d4 rounds, or a Slow cone breath weapon; both have reflex saves, compare to a warlock's 9d6 once per round with no save and augments available.
Frightful presence (lower HD creatures) DC 23-ish
150' fly speed
+20 natural AC bonus, -2(?) to AC from size
SR 21 (only beats a level 15 caster if the caster rolls 6 or lower)
7th-level Sorc casting
DR 5/magic
Stone Shape 2x/day

A level 20 wizard can do everything better except grapple and fly quickly... and the wizard can shapechange into a dragon if it wants to do that. Adding LA to the mix means that a player normally couldn't have the above mediocre abilties until ECL 24, at which point everyone else has epic feats.

With no LA, I'd put a level 20 dragon no higher than Tier 3 compared to PCs of equivalent level.

[Tvtyrant]

I tend to agree. Running it by HD is fairer and easier than by LA.

[Amnestic]

Is it appropriate to use a tier 1 caster as the sole baseline for determining Level Adjustment standards?

That's not to say you're necessarily wrong on the core theory, but comparing it only to a wizard seems flawed to me. A more rigorous comparison might pick a few classes from each tier and compare. How does the 20HD adult dragon stack up vs. Swordsage 20? vs. Bard 20? vs. Sorc 20? vs. Fighter 20? etc. etc.

[Kuulvheysoon]

Cross-posted from a recruitment thread where I'm making a Copper Dragon PC.

Per the Draconomicon, draconic characters should acquire more LA as they age and get larger, in addition to acquiring more Racial Hit Dice. I realize that the Copper Dragon is not the most powerful one (I think it's Gold?), but the principle is the same.

At level 20, a 20-HD (Adult) copper dragon has:
+12 str vs wyrmling
+6 con vs wyrmling
+4 int vs wyrmling
+4 int vs wyrmling
+4 cha vs wyrmling
6 skill points/level, but everything is cross-class except Bluff, Hide, and Jump.

Not true - (True) Dragon class skills are listed in the general True Dragon entry; they are as follows: Listen, Search, Spot, Concentration, Diplomacy, Escape Artist, Intimidate, Knowledge (any), Sense Motive, and Use Magic Device. (Each dragon has other class skills as well, as noted in the variety descriptions.)


+4 size modifier on grapple checks
good saves
12d4 acid line breath weapon - average damage is 30, useable 1d4 rounds, or a Slow cone breath weapon; both have reflex saves, compare to a warlock's 9d6 once per round with no save and augments available.
Frightful presence (lower HD creatures) DC 23-ish
150' fly speed
+20 natural AC bonus, -2(?) to AC from size +19 natural AC bonus, with a -1 size modifier.
SR 21 (only beats a level 15 caster if the caster rolls 6 or lower)
7th-level Sorc casting
DR 5/magic (all but worthless at these levels, I might add).
Stone Shape 2x/day
Spider climb at will

A level 20 wizard can do everything better except grapple and fly quickly... and the wizard can shapechange into a dragon if it wants to do that. Adding LA to the mix means that a player normally couldn't have the above mediocre abilties until ECL 24, at which point everyone else has epic feats.

With no LA, I'd put a level 20 dragon no higher than Tier 3 compared to PCs of equivalent level.

Agreed.

[Komatik]

LA is a hideous, depressing piece of [beep] anyway.
"Hey I'm a winged elf from the mountains. For some unfathomable reason everyone of my kind has a severe learning disability despite bonuses to Int and Wis. We're all also way worse casters than those humans despite having magic in our blood" (don't remember if Avariel do have an Int bonus, just used that as an example).

It just results in nonsensical bs where critters that are supposed to be strong don't feel strong and are not strong, barring a couple cheese templates. And those mostly for melee characters from my understanding. It's not like class levels won't take over in relatively short order anyway : /

[SiuiS]

Dragons shouldn't even have levels, as being a dragon is enough for most games. :smalltongue:

I like the idea from that Frank&K bookity thing about finding the nearest class analogue, and changing it to fit. A level 20 dragon is basically a fighter X / sorcerer Y, anyway. Maybe enough monk to keep their combat effectiveness down and add some attacks/round.


LA is a hideous, depressing piece of [beep] anyway.
"Hey I'm a winged elf from the mountains. For some unfathomable reason everyone of my kind has a severe learning disability despite bonuses to Int and Wis. We're all also way worse casters than those humans despite having magic in our blood" (don't remember if Avariel do have an Int bonus, just used that as an example).

It just results in nonsensical bs where critters that are supposed to be strong don't feel strong and are not strong, barring a couple cheese templates. And those mostly for melee characters from my understanding. It's not like class levels won't take over in relatively short order anyway : /

that actually makes perfect sense.

Imagine you are a werebear. First example, a fighter. Your choices on combat are use your human sword, or werebear at the enemy. You'll probably choose werebear. Second example, you're a wizard. Your choices in combat are use magic missile or sleep, or werebear at the enemy. Again, werebear is the obvious choice.

But you don't learn the rigors of meticulous sword skill through werebearing. And you don't learn arcane secrets tempered by effort of will when you werebear. You always have a much easier, more natural fall-back and often wind up wanting to use that instead. Which, due the the feedback loops, keeps it weak enough you'll want to keep not learning. It's like learning how to file your own taxes when it takes absolutely no effort to all an agent who does it for you.

That winged elf? They're busy being winged elves. Fighting, thieving, wizarding, pretty much all of it is made trivial at low levels by being a winged elf. You don't need optimal combat spell allocation, toucan just fly upward and use your elven longbow proficiency. Except screw that, why not fly away? This fight isn't important, anyway. And then when graduation from Fighter's Camp '13 rolls around you realize you haven't even looke at the curriculum this whole year, and you're still level 1.

[Waddacku]

LA is a metagame construct. It doesn't apply whatsoever to non-PCs. It needs no justification in-setting, because it's just a (ineffectual) method of balancing various races against each other.

[Gwendol]

LA is just a not-so-subtle way of the designers saying "NO" to monster PC's. For the no HD LA+1 creatures or templates they sometimes make sense in that the features gained can be worth a CL (and the buy-back isn't so bad). For HD-rich creatures it becomes ridiculous.

[Ravens_cry]

An idea I had for a game with all Dragon PC was everyone starts out at the same CR and when they level they can either take a class level or a Dragon HD.
Would that be in the ballpark of fair?

[HunterOfJello]

Considering that at level 20 you'd still only have the casting abilities of a level 7 sorcerer, yeah that doesn't really deserve a big LA. It's actually a pretty crappy class choice. The main benefit is the massive natural armor bonus and the occasional use of a breath weapon.

It is worth noting that the Copper Dragon isn't the dragon that gets the most features at the lowest HD, the steel, mercury, deep, and shadow dragons get some of the best of those IIRC. (They're the best choices for draconic wildshape.)

[Amnestic]

LA is just a not-so-subtle way of the designers saying "NO" to monster PC's. For the no HD LA+1 creatures or templates they sometimes make sense in that the features gained can be worth a CL (and the buy-back isn't so bad). For HD-rich creatures it becomes ridiculous.

Except they already have a not so subtle way of saying "no" to monster PCs, that is, "LA: -" monsters (I believe Golems are a notable one for this). When they gave LA to dragons (along with dragon monster classes in Dragon Magazine), they were saying 'yeah, you can play these if you eat the penalties'.

[Darius Kane]

LA is a hideous, depressing piece of [beep] anyway.
"Hey I'm a winged elf from the mountains. For some unfathomable reason everyone of my kind has a severe learning disability despite bonuses to Int and Wis. We're all also way worse casters than those humans despite having magic in our blood" (don't remember if Avariel do have an Int bonus, just used that as an example).

It just results in nonsensical bs where critters that are supposed to be strong don't feel strong and are not strong, barring a couple cheese templates. And those mostly for melee characters from my understanding. It's not like class levels won't take over in relatively short order anyway : /
http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/misc/howeclsworkincharacter.html

[awa]

see i disagree maybe an optimized tier one or 2 character will stomp this dragon but they stomp every one anyhow.

But compared to an average tier 3 or lower character this dragon will decisively overpower them.

Tons of attacks, super high ac (because it can wear armor and magic items) extremely fast at will flight, tons of skill points.
dragon immunities, and draconic senses and a bit of casting on top of all that.

now i don't have an inherent problem with la the problem is that they give monster way to much of it.

the breath weapon dc will actually be higher because it's based on con and a pc dragon will have a higher con both from initial stats and magic items.
and its true there is no save compared to the warlock the dragons breath is an area of effect while the warlocks is a touch attack.

[sleepyphoenixx]

It depends where you set the "balance point" for your campaign.
If you're playing with a bunch of full casters, letting a player use a dragon
with reduced or no LA should be fine.
Hell, a druid with DWS can do everything a dragon can do and more without any LA or racial HD.

If half your party is rogues and fighters a dragon PC at no LA is overpowering.

Just treat the suggested LA as a guideline and hash out a workable compromise
with your DM.
If he's open to a dragon PC in his campaign he should be willing to work with
you to make it an enjoyable experience.

[The Glyphstone]

http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/misc/howeclsworkincharacter.html

If it was written by Sean K. Reynolds, that pretty much invalidates it in terms of insight into anything regarding game balance. That snippet looks to continue the trend.

[Autopsibiofeeder]

Dragons with LA end up as rather underwhelming characters, that's true. However, if you turn this dragon of yours (20HD, copper) into a class, what do you get?

D12 HD, full b.a.b., all good saves, 6+int skills (and a reasonable list of class skills). That is the best chassis thinkable, no class has a better chassis.

As 'class specials', you get:
-a +1 to natural armor each level
-a +2 to one of your stats each level (assuming it was spread out)
-a breath weapon which is about as good as what the dragon shaman and the dragonfire adept get
-Frightful presence
-Spell resistance (minor, but still)
-a size increase (can be quite valuable depending on your build)
-Many natural attacks
-Blindsense
-Some spell-like abilities
-Sorcerer spellcasting (not too impressive, but sort of on par with what a paladin or ranger gets)
-Flight
-Damage reduction
-A few immunities.

It is hard to put this into the tier system. Because there are no high-level spells involved, tier 1 and 2 are out. To me, this seems a bit like gestalting or even tristalting tier 3-4 classes. Appropriate in some campaigns, too overpowered in others.

[Karnith]

If it was written by Sean K. Reynolds, that pretty much invalidates it in terms of insight into anything regarding game balance. That snippet looks to continue the trend.
His comments in that article would make a lot more sense, I think, if the LA system wasn't completely borked (or if he had picked a different example). His own example kind of proves that LA doesn't work: against a gang of orcs, drow PCs really don't have any advantages that regular elven PCs (for example) wouldn't/couldn't have.

[Greenish]

Except they already have a not so subtle way of saying "no" to monster PCs, that is, "LA: -" monsters (I believe Golems are a notable one for this). When they gave LA to dragons (along with dragon monster classes in Dragon Magazine), they were saying 'yeah, you can play these if you eat the penalties'.They were saying "yeah, I guess you could, but we'd really prefer you not to".:smalltongue:


http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/misc/howeclsworkincharacter.htmlYes, the drows' SR, Will save bonus vs. spells, hand crossbow proficiency, and Con penalty are sure to make defeating the orcs a walk in the park.

(For Chtulhu's sake, couldn't he have picked any other race for his flawed example?!)

[Telonius]

I think it might be important to point out that even the game designers didn't think that an Adult Copper Dragon is as strong as a level 20 PC.


Challenge Rating: Wyrmling 3; very young 5; young 7; juvenile 9; young adult 11; adult 14; mature adult 16; old 19; very old 20; ancient 22; wyrm 23; great wyrm 25

[Karnith]

I think it might be important to point out that even the game designers didn't think that an Adult Copper Dragon is as strong as a level 20 PC.
Yeah, the discrepancies between CR and LA are what really drive the point home that level adjustments are basically too high across the board.

My favorite example of this is the vampire template, which according to CR makes the creature slightly stronger (CR +2) and which according to LA is equivalent to eight character levels.

[Gwendol]

Except they already have a not so subtle way of saying "no" to monster PCs, that is, "LA: -" monsters (I believe Golems are a notable one for this). When they gave LA to dragons (along with dragon monster classes in Dragon Magazine), they were saying 'yeah, you can play these if you eat the penalties'.

Golems are mindless, so yeah, not exactly suited as player class. I'd even go so far as saying that golems are impossible as player characters. The LA is just a penalty for wanting to play something that isn't in the player handbook.

[Karnith]

Golems are mindless, so yeah, not exactly suited as player class. I'd even go so far as saying that golems are impossible as player characters.
I agree with you, and yet there's a flesh golem monster class in Savage Species. Weird, innit?

[paddyfool]

Dragon PCs is simply not something that 3.5 does well, imho, and it would take quite a lot of alteration to make it do it well. Other systems that are designed to have them from level 1 might work better for this.


Yeah, the discrepancies between CR and LA are what really drive the point home that level adjustments are basically too high across the board.

My favorite example of this is the vampire template, which according to CR makes the creature slightly stronger (CR +2) and which according to LA is equivalent to eight character levels.

I believe the justification was that the abilities of these monsters are reckoned to be things that would be particularly useful/abusable for PCs, but the extent to which the CR and LA are different seems massively over-the-top sometimes.

[Ravens_cry]

I agree with you, and yet there's a flesh golem monster class in Savage Species. Weird, innit?
Who hasn't wanted to play Frankenstein's Creature?:smallbiggrin:

[Autopsibiofeeder]

I think it might be important to point out that even the game designers didn't think that an Adult Copper Dragon is as strong as a level 20 PC.

Agreed, but the PC dragon would get to roll ability scores and have PC wealth. That bumps its 'CR' quite a bit.

[Telonius]

Agreed, but the PC dragon would get to roll ability scores and have PC wealth. That bumps its 'CR' quite a bit.

I suppose that's true. With an Adult Copper Dragon it gets triple treasure normally, which would work out to around 50k gold. That's a little bit more loot than a 10th-level PC, and something like 100k less than a 14th-level PC. (And let's be honest, most of a typical dragon's loot is going to be in hoard form).

[Karnith]

Who hasn't wanted to play Frankenstein's Creature?:smallbiggrin:
Well, me for one. But that's the kind of thing I'd just want to put into my character's fluff, rather than play a crap-tastic class with basically nothing going for it.

A problem that a lot of monster classes have, in my experience.

[Darius Kane]

If it was written by Sean K. Reynolds, that pretty much invalidates it in terms of insight into anything regarding game balance. That snippet looks to continue the trend.
Sorry Glyph, but what game balance? He only explained how ECLs work in-character. His example might not have been perfect because he clearly doesn't know how the game works, but it still makes sense. Lets not be biased here.


Yes, the drows' SR, Will save bonus vs. spells, hand crossbow proficiency, and Con penalty are sure to make defeating the orcs a walk in the park.
Than replace "drow" with "half-dragon human" or "mineral warrior human". :smallsigh:

[Greenish]

Than replace "drow" with "half-dragon human" or "mineral warrior human". :smallsigh:I was just pointing out how hilariously bad an example he picked.

For his actual argument, well, it would make sense if not for the fact that the 1st level drow would be facing encounters meant for 3rd level characters, just like everyone else in the party, only they would be harder for the drow since he's just level 1, so he should level faster.

[Darius Kane]

That's not the point tho.

[JoshuaZ]

Yeah, the discrepancies between CR and LA are what really drive the point home that level adjustments are basically too high across the board.

My favorite example of this is the vampire template, which according to CR makes the creature slightly stronger (CR +2) and which according to LA is equivalent to eight character levels.

Well some difference does make sense. CR is more relevant for single battles. If I have a template that gives me a lot of out of combat utility that should have a higher LA adjustment than it adjusts CR. But yeah, even given that 8 v. 2 is still sort of insane.

[Karnith]

Well some difference does make sense. CR is more relevant for single battles. If I have a template that gives me a lot of out of combat utility that should have a higher LA adjustment than it adjusts CR. But yeah, even given that 8 v. 2 is still sort of insane.
That's the justification that Wizards has consistently used, and there are certainly monsters that have abilities that are silly for PCs to have that won't affect combat capabilities (a lot of monsters with weird SLAs, like divinations, or things with earth glide).

The problem is that monsters are designed for (you guessed it!) combat, so there aren't actually a lot of monsters with those kinds of abilities, and even monsters with very little out-of-combat use have weirdly-large level adjustments. Ogres, for example, are creatures who basically are only good at hitting things. They are CR 3, but ECL 6. By its CR, it should be roughly equivalent with a 3rd-level fighter, but by ECL it should be the equivalent of a 6th-level fighter. And that's a problem. It gets worse when you step up the chain to, say, hill giants, who are CR 7 but ECL 16.

And that's not even getting into things like Ogre Mages who are hideously over-LAed, to the point that their special attacks and SLAs are basically irrelevant by the time that they're playable.

[awa]

to be fair for a vampire a number of the vampires abilities are useful in the hands of a monster but game breaking in the hands of a pc (and some powers are good for monsters but almost worthless for pcs.) That said 8 is way to much.

[Greenish]

That's not the point tho.What's not the point?

The in-game explanation he offers for LA-induced learning disabilities flat-out doesn't work, because it entirely neglects to take LA into account.

[JoshuaZ]

That's the justification that Wizards has consistently used, and there are certainly monsters that have abilities that are silly for PCs to have that won't affect combat capabilities (a lot of monsters with weird SLAs, like divinations, or things with earth glide).

The problem is that monsters are designed for (you guessed it!) combat, and even monsters with very little out-of-combat use have weirdly-large level adjustments. Ogres, for example, are creatures who basically are only good at hitting things. They are CR 3, but ECL 6. By its CR, it should be roughly equivalent with a 3rd-level fighter, but by ECL it should be the equivalent of a 6th-level fighter. And that's a problem. It gets worse when you step up the chain to, say, hill giants, who are CR 7 but ECL 16.

And that's not even getting into things like Ogre Mages who are hideously over-LAed, to the point that their special attacks and SLAs are basically irrelevant by the time that they're playable.

Yeah, the idea is sound the difference is just much too high. Smaller LAs and using mechanics like what the Necropolitan does would make a lot more sense. This is a good example where they should have just said "oops" and fixed things.

[Darius Kane]

What's not the point?
How ECL works for balance, or whatever you're arguing.


The in-game explanation he offers for LA-induced learning disabilities flat-out doesn't work, because it entirely neglects to take LA into account.
:smallconfused:
It takes LA into account. He's talking about ECL, no? He just isn't talking about PCs or that ECL works perfectly (he probably thinks the later, but he doesn't say it and it's not relevant to his explanation).
What you're doing right now is disregarding his explanation (which makes some sense and is reasonable) based on the fact that ECL/LA is a flawed system when used for PCs, which is irrelevant.

[Greenish]

He just isn't talking about PCsWhat does ECL matter to NPCs?

[Darius Kane]

What does ECL matter to NPCs?
:smallsigh:
He's talking about an in-character explanation to ECL. Did you even read the article? :smallconfused: I linked it in response to someone saying that LA doesn't make sense in-character. It can make sense.

[Amnestic]

:smallsigh:
He's talking about an in-character explanation to ECL. Did you even read the article? :smallconfused: I linked it in response to someone saying that LA doesn't make sense in-character. It can make sense.

It can, but SKRs explanation is...strange, to say the least. Him using Drow was a bad example from an in-character perspective. He states that, because Drow have LA+2, they're stronger, and thus lazier than humans when it comes to improving themselves, and thus have to work harder to get there.

But Drow society is excessively cut-throat to the point where it requires divine intervention to not fall apart. Drow seem to be a matriarchal meritocracy, where the best advance and the lazy/weak are culled. Human society (generally speaking) is a lot 'kinder' and thus it's far easier for lazy humans to survive than lazy Drow. This, right here:



SKR: So, in the terms of the game world, the drow can afford to be more lazy [than humans]

I could not disagree more with it - as an in character explanation it is incredibly flawed.

[Darius Kane]

I could not disagree more with it - as an in character explanation it is incredibly flawed.
Correction - the example is ****ty. Explanation makes sense. As I said, just replace "drow" with something more fitting, like "half-dragon human".

[Autopsibiofeeder]

Or, you can just accept LA as a metagame construct and not bother with it in character.

[Gazebo's Bane]

toucan just fly upward and use your elven longbow proficiency.

I really hope that's deliberate and not a typo :smallsmile:

[Gwendol]

I agree with you, and yet there's a flesh golem monster class in Savage Species. Weird, innit?

Indeed. Especially since it's "mindless" but with some (small) INT. Terrible class by the way.

[Darius Kane]

Or, you can just accept LA as a metagame construct and not bother with it in character.
Nah, that's too easy.

[Amnestic]

Correction - the example is ****ty. Explanation makes sense. As I said, just replace "drow" with something more fitting, like "half-dragon human".

Fluff for half-dragons (either RotD or Draconomicon - I forget which) is that they're almost universally abandoned by their parents (both dragon and non-dragon) and always outcasts - they have to work hard if they're gonna survive. :smallamused:


SKR: Because [Drow] don't have to work as hard [as humans], they don't work as hard.

No matter who you are - half dragon, Lich, Lycanthrope, Drow or whatever, I don't buy it. His explanation forces laziness as a character trait upon your players because they took level adjustment, a trait not supported by the LA in general. It also presumes that acquiring a template (such as Lich or Vampire) makes you more lazy. It gives every single LA+X template "increased laziness" as a character trait...even if the fluff and crunch don't support it or even outright reject it, as in the case of Drow.


Or, you can just accept LA as a metagame construct and not bother with it in character.

That's what I would do. SKR clearly rejects that, since the question posits "Is there an in-game explanation or is it solely a metagame construct purely for game balance?", and his explanation is an in-game justification.

[Darius Kane]

SKR clearly rejects that
Um, no. He just gives an explanation to those that do.
And you don't have to buy it. You already said that you treat LA as metagame construct so it's moot. But those that don't at least have some sort of reasonable explanation.
Also, he said that the drow can be lazy. Doesn't mean they always are. Imagine a drow PC. He's weaker at first, but using LA-buy off he soon will be equal to his teammates.

[Asteron]

Um, no. He just gives an explanation to those that do.
And you don't have to buy it. You already said that you treat LA as metagame construct so it's moot. But those that don't at least have some sort of reasonable explanation.

Racial laziness isn't a reasonable explanation...

[XionUnborn01]

I think that LA can make sense if you look at it from this perspective; A human is weaker than a lot of things, so more things are challenging and thus they learn more. Drow are still weaker than a lot of things, but some things that can be a challenge to humans are trivial to drow.

A human fighting a goblin has a higher chance to die than a drow fighting a goblin, A human party fighting an ogre at first level would be challenged, a drow party with one class level wouldn't have to work as hard. I'm just guessing that's the case here, I haven't really run numbers or anything, but that it at least supposed to be the concept.

Thinking of it like that helps me get my head around it a little, some things with LA are just naturally better and thus there's less to challenge them in average living. This breaks down at higher levels obviously, but then again I let people reduce their LA by 1 every 5 levels, so I try to help that.

[Darius Kane]

Racial laziness isn't a reasonable explanation...
It's not racial laziness, tho. :smallconfused: It's laziness from being better. And it's not even really "laziness" per se. It's just complacence. Why train or learn if you're already better then some? Some people have ambitions, some don't.

[Gwendol]

I argue that it's not even there for game balance but to actively discourage monster PC's. The Ogre Mage is a good example. The race could be a good frame for a gish, but slapping on 7 levels with no benefit whatsoever? What were they thinking other than punishing anyone not wanting to play PHB races?
Compare an Ogre Mage sorcerer 1 to a human sorcerer 13 and tell me what benefit the Ogre Mage has from his loss of 7 HD, and all associated saves, BAB, feats, and skills, compared to his disparate collection of SLA's and 1st level sorcerer spells.
It makes no sense that a creature with magic as innate abilities should advance as a sorcerer so poorly, and the same goes for dragons (even more so perhaps).

[Amnestic]

but using LA-buy off he soon will be equal to his teammates.

LA buy-off is a variant rule and is definitely not available at every table. You shouldn't be basing in-character explanations on variant rules that aren't Core, no?

[Asteron]

It's not racial laziness, tho. :smallconfused: It's laziness from being better.

So all talented creatures are naturally lazy? You, my friend, have not spent much time around gifted people (physically or intellectually.) For every gifted slacker, there are 2-3 gifted over-achievers... have you ever watched any sporting event or spent time with scientists or academic. Very hard working people. They have to be to get where they are. Why are drow or any other powerful race any different?

[Gwendol]

I think there might be some prejudice against those naturally gifted. The idea perhaps being that they are lazier since everything comes to them so easily. It is of course not true: personal motivation is what matter, wherever that may come from.

[Darius Kane]

LA buy-off is a variant rule and is definitely not available at every table. You shouldn't be basing in-character explanations on variant rules that aren't Core, no?
It's just an example that uses what is generally available. :smallconfused: I don't know what "Core" has to do with anything.


So all talented creatures are naturally lazy?
I think you missed my edit.


You, my friend, have not spent much time around gifted people (physically or intellectually.)
Maybe. But all stereotypes have some truth to them.


For every gifted slacker, there are 2-3 gifted over-achievers... have you ever watched any sporting event or spent time with scientists or academic. Very hard working people. They have to be to get where they are. Why are drow or any other powerful race any different?
I think you have it backwards. Just because you see some talented people on the TV doesn't mean there's all there is to it. There's many more that you don't see. And really, how do you know that those "talented" overachievers are gifted, and not simply hard workers who overcame their averageness?

[Rukia]

That explanation makes sense, he just chose a poor race as an example due to Drow being notoriously over LA'd. Let's instead use Goliath vs a Human with the Barbarian class. Assuming they start out with the same stats, the Goliath gets 4 more str, 2 more con and -2 dex and he can use a large sized weapon. If you throw in the Goliath Barbarian racial sub level at 1, then it gets even more skewed.

Goliaths will have +2 more to hit at any given time, +3 when raging along with getting reach. He'll only have 1 more hit point and 1 more fortitude, at the cost of 1 less AC and initiative. Let's say both PC's start with 18 str, a greatsword and aren't raging. The human has 2 less to hit and does 2d6+6 damage. The Goliath has +2 to hit over the human and does 3d6+9 and can resist being grappled/trip'd with a +4 advantage. While raging the Goliath gains even more ground with an extra +1 to hit and +1 damage while also gaining reach.

The point being that at level 1 the Goliath would have a much easier time in any combat situation compared to the human. So the Goliath wins the encounter without requiring as much effort or risk to himself, whereas the human is stretched to his limit. Therefore the Goliath should "theoretically" gain less exp than the human for the same encounter as it was a less risky endeavor. Since as was explained, the exp at early levels is the same across the board so the LA is added to simulate getting less exp. The human does get a bonus feat and bonus skill points, but at that level it can't really make up for the loss. So you get to take power attack, or improved bullrush or something else extra. The Goliath would get more mileage out of power attack as he has more attack bonus to work with.

I'm not saying LA isn't often jacked up and unreasonable, but if you removed it then you'd see a large skew of players taking LA+1 races because of the obvious benefits at low levels. Obviously at high levels things balance out and what made them stronger early on isn't that great of an advantage anymore, which is why I think LA buyoff is a great idea. It keeps the weaker PC races ahead in exp at lower levels, but eventually the LA race catches back up and will be the same level most of the time.

[Gwendol]

Rukia, you forget to take into account a few things. The goliath will be something of a glass cannon since the human barbarian may have double the amount of HP, so no he does not go into an encounter facing less risk, only a certainty of doing more damage for every hit.
When going Large, the goliath does not gain a to hit bonus (larger creature have a penalty to hit) and also loses AC and DEX, which further exposes him to lethal HP loss should his enemies land a blow.

Not to mention that the human barbarian will have both PA and cleave, while the goliath will just have PA.

So, not even that example illustrates why LA is anything but a penalty.

[awa]

its not that la+ races are lazier its just that easy fights give less in the way of life lessons and hard won experience then hard fights.


The difference is a fight that would be a brutal life and death struggle for a human level 1 barbarian might be a cake walk for the Goliath level 1 barbarian. the Goliath isn't actually lazier its just that any fight he has is going to be easier then the equivalent fight for a same level human.

look at it this way a 300 pound line backer will get less benefit from a 100 pound persons weight lifting regime. If they want to improve themselves they need to seek out greater challenges.

Of course i agree that la is still flawed because they tended to give monstrous races to much of it. (also it does not scale well because abilities that are game breaking at level 1 might be useless at level 20)

Edit obviously la is a penalty a penalty used to offset an advantage the Goliath has an advantage that makes him better then a level 1 barbarian. you may argue that it's la is to high that's it's not as good as a level 2 barbarian but that is a separate issue i don't think anyone would contest that monsters in general tend to have inflated la.

[Gwendol]

But you can't compare a goliath barbarian 1 to a human barbarian 1, or you can, but it's not fair to the goliath. Already at the same ECL the human is at least pulling even if not ahead already. This is why LA is so very bad. A flat EXP penalty would have been enough, if not the most elegant of solutions. Which is more or less the reasoning behind LA buy-back but in an extremly convoluted fashion.

[Darius Kane]

But you can't compare a goliath barbarian 1 to a human barbarian 1, or you can, but it's not fair to the goliath.
Um... how? They're the same level, but the goliath is stronger than the human. :smallconfused: Apparently you misunderstood. Rukia is talking about a 1st level human (ECL 1) vs. a 1st level goliath (ECL 2).

[Asteron]

It's just an example that uses what is generally available. :smallconfused: I don't know what "Core" has to do with anything.


I think you missed my edit.


Maybe. But all stereotypes have some truth to them.


I think you have it backwards. Just because you see some talented people on the TV doesn't mean there's all there is to it. There's many more that you don't see. And really, how do you know that those "talented" overachievers are gifted, and not simply hard workers who overcame their averageness?

The edit came while I was replying...

The truth found in stereotypes is often very exagerated...

My experience with gifted people is personal. I was in the gifted program in high school. I was the slacker. The other 8 people in my age group were not. Same goes with my experience on the baseball team. The most talented there worked the hardest with one or two exceptions. Also, you'll note that I included scientists and academics in that. They are definitely not on TV...

--

Some LA is actually not bad. The LA on the Goliath is pretty fair, as is most of the +1 LA races/templates. Same goes for most of the +2's and 3's. Drow, I feel, are a +1. Their bonuses don't outweigh the 2 lost levels. Half-dragons are modestly priced if you aren't starting low and are playing melee. +4 and above are usually all too much (there are exceptions like the pixie... at-will greater invisibilty is huge, as are the ability scores.) Creatures with RHD are always pegged with too much. Dragons and outsiders are the only one with HD that might match a decent class... otherwise the RHD is punishment enough.

[Darius Kane]

The truth found in stereotypes is often very exagerated...
Well yeah, stereotypes are exaggerated on purpose. But there's still truth in them.


Also, you'll note that I included scientists and academics in that. They are definitely not on TV...
Didn't say they are. Although some are.

[Asteron]

We could go round and round about this without ever changing each others minds and I think we've gotten off topic enough...

The point is, LA is a metagame construct and the arugment that SKR makes is often unsupported by racial fluff... If you don't try as hard in Drow society because you are naturally talented, you will end up dead at the hands of someone who will work hard. What's that? The whole drow race is a little complacent? Not only is that patently absurd, it is again not found in their fluff. Drow are, by and large, very hardworkers and not just because they will end up dead if they don't. The same goes with almost all other LA races...

An interesting exception is that the half-dragon's slow advancement is acutally built into their fluff...

[Darius Kane]

The point is, LA is a metagame construct
But doesn't have to be, as SKR demonstrated.


and the arugment that SKR makes is often unsupported by racial fluff...
Often? Drow are just one example.


If you don't try as hard in Drow society because you are naturally talented, you will end up dead at the hands of someone who will work hard.
That would be correct if not for the fact that a drow competes with other drow, who are as naturally talented as he is. So they don't have easier and thus are likely to have higher ambitions. BUT OTOH most of the work is done by slaves who are below drow and generally of races that are weaker, so...
Also what you say doesn't make sense, because then 1st level drow wouldn't exist. There's complacency everywhere, even in drow society.
Most of the backstabing is going on between nobility, BTW. "Commoner" drow are bastards but are less backstabby than you might think. And because they have weak slaves to bully and push around, it's not unreasonable that their feeling of superiority (which is a fact that drow think they're better than any other races, even if it's not true) might make them lazy/complacent.

[awa]

At first i was gonna reply then i realized i was basically reiterating what i had already said before.

so i agree that we have more or less summed up both (all?) sides in regards to the drow thing.

I feel that compared to say a barbarian level 20, a 20 hd (with pc stats and gear) dragon would completely destroy him in melee the one thing hes good at and compete effectively in several other roles some of which he would also be quite effective at.

[dspeyer]

What the whole "laziness" thing misses is that a party of drow with one class level each don't waste their time curb-stomping orcs. They go straight to the bugbear lair. And they advance just as fast as the humans. Or at least they would if they were worth their LA.

But back to dragons...

Dragon abilities don't really scale. They don't get 9th level spells or powers or maneuvers. As a linear class, though, dragons rhd are among the best. As an ability-by-ability comparison, dragon rhd beat barbarian//rogue gestalt pretty solidly. But they don't really keep up with warblade at high levels. If your balance target is tier 3, dragon LAs should probably go *down* as they get older.

For truly excessive LAs, you need to look at giants. Those are just ridiculous.

[mangosta71]

But doesn't have to be, as SKR demonstrated.
No, he didn't. Here's the full text of what you linked:

A Brazilian gamer once asked me if ECLs have any explanation in-game for what they are and how they work, or was it something purely for balance that existed only between players and DMs. This is the answer I gave him.

Think of it this way:

A group of 1st-level human characters facing a group of 4 orcs (total Encounter Level of 2) are in for a tough fight; the orcs outmatch them (because the average character level is 1 and the EL for the encounter is 2). The humans are taking a great risk in fighting the orcs; the humans have a significant chance of losing the fight.

A group of 1st-level drow characters (each with total ECL of 3 ... 1 for class level, 2 for level adjustment) facing a group of 4 orcs are in for an easy fight; the orcs are weaker than them (because the average effective character level is 3 and the orcs' EL for the encounter is 2). The drow aren't really taking a risk; they have almost no chance of losing the fight.

The drow have it easier than the humans do from day one of their adventuring career. They don't have to work as hard as humans do to succeed. Because they don't have to work as hard, they don't work as hard. This is reflected in game terms by the drow getting fewer XP than the humans for an encounter of the same EL (because 3rd-level characters get fewer XP for defeating a creature than 1st-level characters do*). So the drow aren't earning as much XP because they are getting "easy fights" compared to the humans. They're taking less of a risk, and aren't being rewarded as much.

(* OK, technically they do get the same XP because the XP awards are the same for levels 1-3, but at higher levels it is actually different. In any case, the amount of XP awarded does less for a higher-level character because more XP is needed to reach the next level.)

So, in the terms of the game world, the drow can afford to be more lazy, and so they don't climb levels as fast as humans do, who don't have the luxury of being lazy (because humans don't have SR, great ability score bonuses, and so on).
His argument is "they have it easier because they have LA, and they have LA because they have it easier". In other words, a classic circular logic fallacy. There's no actual justification in his argument for the conclusion that the drow are in for an easy fight while the humans are in for a significant challenge.

Often? Drow are just one example.
It's the example that he, and by extension you, used. And it's been thoroughly debunked. If you have an appropriate example, let's see it.

That would be correct if not for the fact that a drow competes with other drow, who are as naturally talented as he is. So they don't have easier and thus are likely to have higher ambitions.
If they're tackling higher-level challenges, they should actually be advancing faster because they're getting more XP.

BUT OTOH most of the work is done by slaves who are below drow and generally of races that are weaker, so...
The trivial scutwork that wouldn't award XP beyond level 4 or so anyway?

Most of the backstabing is going on between nobility, BTW. "Commoner" drow are bastards but are less backstabby than you might think. And because they have weak slaves to bully and push around, it's not unreasonable that their feeling of superiority (which is a fact that drow think they're better than any other races, even if it's not true) might make them lazy/complacent.
"Commoner" drow get conscripted into the armies of the "noble" drow families. They're not given a chance to be lazy or complacent - they have to be ready to fight for their lives (against other drow) at a moment's notice.

[Tvtyrant]

Dragons are effectively playable monks. They have the best chassis in the game, but no chassis is comparable to actual class abilities. They get a bundle of skills and natural attacks, but no spells/maneuvers/actual class abilities. They get spells eventually, but way behind real casters (or even Paladins!) They get breath weapons equivalent to a Dragon Shaman, but a DS is not exactly a great point of reference for power. And if they want to invest feats into making any of it good, they have to dump the other stuff.

So yeah, they are like super-monks. They deal with the MAD aspect by giving them stat improvements as they level, but at the end of the day a Totemist or DFA is as good at what they do as they are.

[awa]

they also has extremely fast flight and incredibly good ac (when combined with magic items) and a number of superior senses they have "class features"
also the dragon breath weapons dc is going to be much higher then the dfa because they have a much higher con as well.

also keep in mind they can use natural attacks and a breath weapon so they are a lot more versatile.

power attack and wraith strike =as much melee damage as you could every want.

high con +d12 hd +an ac 18 points higher then a pc with the same gear = a solid tank

at will flight at extreme speed +ranged attacks = good at harassing ground based foes.

I suspect this dragon would dominate a totemist in melee (both his ac, hp, accuracy and damage are much higher) i don't know enough about a dfa to say how they compare.

a barbarian is in the same situation lets look at these might unbeatable class features.
mighty rage) the dragons str and con are still higher and there up continuously and don't affect his ability to use magic items or lower defenses
fast movement) the dragons much faster
dr) The barbarian has better dr but the dragon has much higher ac better saves and built in immunities.

the only thing the barbarian actually has that the dragon does not have a superior equivalent is uncanny dodge

on top of all that the barbarian has to waste money acquiring flight (and maybe dark vision) while the dragon can spend those on wands and scrolls

[Scow2]

A big problem with LAs is that they're designed to be balanced with fourth-tier classes, because an Ogre or Minotaur PC has more combat capability than a Monk or Fighter of the same level as them.

The designated LAs almost work if you find just the right way to cheeze their innate abilities, and compare that to a rogue, fighter, monk, ranger, or paladin of the same ECL.

[Darius Kane]

It's the example that he, and by extension you, used. And it's been thoroughly debunked. If you have an appropriate example, let's see it.
I did give an appropriate example. >.>
Hint: half-dragon human (or any other race or template that's not overLAed)


If they're tackling higher-level challenges, they should actually be advancing faster because they're getting more XP.
Sure, only they have less of such higher-level challenges, because what self-respecting drow would actually go after someone with equal power? That would be stupid and incompetent. No no, drow prey on the weak. And those that do go after someone of equal (or greater) power are very exceptional individuals who took a risk and succeeded (probably due to DM fiat or plot-armor). Or a few drow can make an alliance to take down someone stronger, but such things are rare and they gain less XP (because there's more people to divide it between).


The trivial scutwork that wouldn't award XP beyond level 4 or so anyway?
So lazy.


"Commoner" drow get conscripted into the armies of the "noble" drow families. They're not given a chance to be lazy or complacent - they have to be ready to fight for their lives (against other drow) at a moment's notice.
And yet most of drow foot-soldiers are 1st level warriors. And BTW, drow armies mainly consist of slave troops.

You can nitpick the example (which I already acknowledged is flawed, BTW) all you want, but that's all you're doing, nitpicking a specific example.
Address the actual point of the article, then maybe you'll have something of an argument.

[JBento]

If being lazy->less XP, you would have to apply the same logic to every other effort difference. That would mean that a Fighter would get less xp for killing an orc warrior than a commoner of the same species and level. The druid who just sends his wolf to kill the orc does even less work, and gets the same amount of XP. Clearly, XP gain is disconnected from effort. Therefore, SKR fails, hard, again.

[awa]

its far from perfect but an orc warrior is worth less xp then an orc fighter and the reason is because the orc fighter is more challenging.

I have seen premade adventures where they told the dm to award less xp because the bad guys were under-wealth and thus easier.

now obviously it's not perfect elemental wierds and divine meta-magic persist clerics both show that the whole system is flawed.

The theory might be sound even if the implementation is flawed

[Shalist]

@ J-H There's a copper dragon build (http://blackmarches.wikidot.com/dragon-copper) designed to be a playable character without needing any class levels. In order to compensate for being 6 CR lower than fighter 20, it has it has +6 sorc levels and improved dragoniness (SR, DR, SLA's). While you can do a lot with a solid melee build that has great stats and 6th level spells, the emphasis seems more on being a viable dragon than trying to stand toe-to-toe with a wizard 20 though...but if you're cool with that, its worth a peak.

[Vaz]

Um, where? That's not a class progression.

[TaiLiu]

Well yeah, stereotypes are exaggerated on purpose. But there's still truth in them.
I would like to argue this by pointing out stereotypes that cast a certain race as inferior or less intelligent than another race.

[J-H]

Wow, 3 pages in 24 hours. I agree with the person that pointed out that dragons are below Tier 2 but above a typical Tier 3. Given a game that's not banning the Tier 1/Tier 2 classes, this means that they are not going to imbalance the party by themselves even without LA assigned.

Dragon LA is especially bad at low levels... Copper Wyrmlings have a 2d4 breath weapon, low AC (not enough WBL or natural armor to make a difference), and have to eat an AOO to attack physically with their claws - otherwise they are limited to Bite @ 1d6. This is at 5HD when the wizard has Fireball (or Fly) and the barbarian can put out 2d6+12+ damage with a decent chance to hit. A level 5 wyrmling can scout for the party but doesn't do damage...

[Arcanist]

Also, he said that the drow can be lazy. Doesn't mean they always are. Imagine a drow PC. He's weaker at first, but using LA-buy off he soon will be equal to his teammates.

Doesn't this notion make it so that actually having a LA is an option, like being Lazy? :smallconfused: Does this also mean that Incarnate Construct Warforged are over achievers?


Well yeah, stereotypes are exaggerated on purpose. But there's still truth in them.

I'm going to pretend that this was you making a joke.

[Starbuck_II]

Fluff for half-dragons (either RotD or Draconomicon - I forget which) is that they're almost universally abandoned by their parents (both dragon and non-dragon) and always outcasts - they have to work hard if they're gonna survive. :smallamused:


1/2 elf and 1/2 Orcs do too but they don't get LA like 1/2 dragons.

[Tvtyrant]

Fluff for half-dragons (either RotD or Draconomicon - I forget which) is that they're almost universally abandoned by their parents (both dragon and non-dragon) and always outcasts - they have to work hard if they're gonna survive. :smallamused:



Really? I totally missed that one.. I have been running them as convenient servants for dragons for years.

[Ravens_cry]

Eh, whatever floats your boat. I want to make a setting where most dragons are part of the local hierarchy as opposed to monsters, generally taking on the roll of nobility and rulers. All this interaction with humanoids means, yes, Half-Dragons might be reasonably common and accepted in many areas and even somewhat revered.

[Darius Kane]

I would like to argue this by pointing out stereotypes that cast a certain race as inferior or less intelligent than another race.
Feel free. But note that I didn't say they are true. There's some truth in them, because they had to come from somewhere, but as I said in the quoted part, they're purposefully exaggerated (often into being insulting).


Doesn't this notion make it so that actually having a LA is an option, like being Lazy?
Sometimes it is an option. There's lesser drow, there's monster classes, there's transition classes.
Also, you're too hung up on the word "lazy". Try complacent, maybe that will make more sense to you.


I'm going to pretend that this was you making a joke.
No, I wasn't.

[Gwendol]

Feel free. But note that I didn't say they are true. There's some truth in them, because they had to come from somewhere, but as I said in the quoted part, they're purposefully exaggerated (often into being insulting).


I'd say there is typically no truth behind them, because the stereotype serves a malign purpose.

[Darius Kane]

There's always truth behind them, no matter how much you'd wish for it to be not true. Malign purpose doesn't exclude truth. You know the stereotype "Poles are stupid"? Yeah, I can assure you there's truth to that, even though I don't like it (and from what I've seen on the internet, we're not even in the top 10).
And I would like to repeat - I'm not saying stereotypes are true.

[mangosta71]

There are a couple Polish guys at the facility were I work. They're not stupid by any definition that I would use - I've always found them to be very bright and insightful. I assume that stereotype arose historically due to a lack of educational opportunities in Poland. Poles weren't any stupider than anyone else, they simply had less education.

To take another example from history: people from one continent were transplanted onto another continent with a different climate. They suffered from the heat and humidity of their new environment. They got defined as "lazy" because they were constantly suffering from heat exhaustion, and weren't happy about having been forcibly moved on top of that so they had no internal motivation to work.

A third example: some areas are very hot during the middle of the day, so people in those areas got into the habit of napping through the worst of the heat. Yet the work they do is more physically demanding, and they put in longer hours, than the "hardworking" people who stereotype them as "lazy".

Moral of the story: the "truth" that stereotypes are based on is often deeply flawed.

[Darius Kane]

http://derpicdn.net/thumbs/1000/500/2012/12/12/06_57_15_817_180336__UNOPT__safe_princess_luna_ima ge_macro_caption_reaction_image

[Amnestic]

Really? I totally missed that one.. I have been running them as convenient servants for dragons for years.

That's just the basic rule. Obviously player fluff can differ should the plot require it to :smalltongue: For the record though:

Draconomicon, pg.27

A dragon almost always either abandons its half-dragon offspring or leaves it in the care of its nondragon parent. Chromatic dragons typically remain unconcerned about the half-dragon’s fate. Metallic dragons believe (usually correctly) that the half-dragon will fare better among nondragons than it ever will among dragons.

[Gwendol]

There's always truth behind them, no matter how much you'd wish for it to be not true. Malign purpose doesn't exclude truth. You know the stereotype "Poles are stupid"? Yeah, I can assure you there's truth to that, even though I don't like it (and from what I've seen on the internet, we're not even in the top 10).
And I would like to repeat - I'm not saying stereotypes are true.

I have no idea where you are going with this. Stereotypes of the kind you are putting forth here are of the xenophobic and racist type, and there is certainly not always truth behind them.

Please educate yourself on the matter. (Hereditary vs environmental factors)

[Ravens_cry]

The 'grain of truth' that someone with x quality can exhibit y feature, but correlation is not necessarily causality, and the wrongness is to generalize that y feature is true to all with x quality.

[Darius Kane]

I have no idea where you are going with this.
I'm stating a fact.

[Asteron]

I'm stating a fact.

No, you are stating racist comments that are false far more than they are true... The fact that some of the races in question aren't real doesn't make it less stupid.

No here is buying your "complacent" argument. It's quite the load of crap. Especially given that drow are often described as brutal and efficient. They keep control of their slaves through constant applications of fear and death. Hardly the mark of complacency.

Back to the original example by SKR: the drow would likely lose to the orcs because they only have 1 HD. The orcs are going to be able to likely drop them with one hit.

Honestly, the better argument that he should have made (that Rukia ended up making) is that they don't get as much out of that fight than humans do, not that they don't work as hard. It's like doing middle school math as a high school student. You would get it done faster but wouldn't gain hardly any knowledge from it... Not a perfect example, but it's more appropriate than the "complacency" argument.

[Darius Kane]

No, you are stating racist comments that are false far more than they are true... The fact that some of the races in question aren't real doesn't make it less stupid.
Um... I'm talking about stereotypes, which can be racist but not all are. And I'm talking about stereotypes in general, not just in fantasy games. And I stand by my statement.


No here is buying your "complacent" argument.
Good thing I'm not selling anything then. I said "complacent" because people were somehow unhappy with the word "lazy".


It's quite the load of crap.
Whoa, calm yourself there. :smallannoyed:


Especially given that drow are often described as brutal and efficient. They keep control of their slaves through constant applications of fear and death. Hardly the mark of complacency.
Considering that most that we know about drow is focusing on drow nobility (because they're the ones that scheme the most and are more interesting), I wouldn't use that to describe all drow. IIRC, some drow book was saying that, indeed, drow do scheme, but not as much as you would think. Besides, there's still room for complacency. If you really think that danger to your life is enough to always motivate everybody then you're fooling yourself. If drow society would be such a motivator to excel then there wouldn't be low level drow, all would be in their teen levels already, no one would ever die to a scheme or progress in hierarchy, because their rival would be as competent and efficient as them and drows would already conquer the world. Sorry, but reality doesn't work like that. There's always incompetence or complacency. Ambition is fairly rare and it grows on corspes of those that are incompetent. Drow society isn't very different. The only difference is that in a normal society, if you're not efficient you might get fired from your job or pass up a promotion, but in drow society it might cost you your life.
Drow nobles are the ones that have to be ambitious, because they have no choice, their family is pushing them to either be useful or be sacrificed to Lolth.


Honestly, the better argument that he should have made (that Rukia ended up making) is that they don't get as much out of that fight than humans do, not that they don't work as hard.
It can be either.

[Asteron]

Your example was, in fact, racist. No getting around it. Which, regardless of the context, is enough to tick me off. So no calming down here...

You are trying to sell the argument made by SKR, so much so that I wonder if you are SKR...

War of the Spider Queen and other such novels gave a lot more insight into non-noble society. The fact is, common drow don't differ much in their attitudes than nobles. The most common drow still regards themself to be higher than any non-drow. They also have to work much harder than nobles to survive since they have fewer resources at their disposal.

[Darius Kane]

Your example was, in fact, racist. No getting around it. Which, regardless of the context, is enough to tick me off.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCgx8zM3woQ


So no calming down here...
Huh. So you're gonna call my argument "load of crap" because of an example I made, that is completely not relevant to the argument you're calling "load of crap"? :smallconfused:
Well, suit yourself. But maybe you shouldn't post under the influence of anger.


War of the Spider Queen and other such novels gave a lot more insight into non-noble society. The fact is, common drow don't differ much in their attitudes than nobles. The most common drow still regards themself to be higher than any non-drow. They also have to work much harder than nobles to survive since they have fewer resources at their disposal.
Fewer resources, but also fewer responsibilities.

You know what? Whatever. You're getting angry for some reason and I'm getting bored. Lets just agree to disagree before someone says something he will regret. This off-topic, which I'm solely responsible for, gone far enough. I'm done. Bye.