CR-based charbuilding?

[Necroticplague]

Hey, for a long time, I've noticed how much it sucks to be a monstrous PC. LA reduces the amount of class levels you get with absolutely no reward, and RHD replaces them with minimal gain (and most RHD are pretty bade). However, while playing a 3.p game here,I came across Pathfinder's interesting system that lets near-anything be used as a PC. And it got me thinking: what problems would be associated with just using it in 3.5 alone?

So now, instead of just thinking on my lonesome, I ask the playground: what kind of problems could come from using such a system? The main thing I can see it that it would actually turn RHD into something desirable, since it wouldn't count against you anymore.

[Zanos]

So CR=ECL? Monsters that get built in class features as racial abilities would need to be looked at heavily. Monsters with at-will or frequent use SLAs would need to be monitored too. A lot of monster abilities are just plain better on PCs because monsters tend to die. Many monsters have a lot more HD than their CR and become just plain better at melee combat than their non monstrous peers.

Some monsters are just plainly under CR'd. Dragons become an amazing pick, for example.

[ryu]

Hey, for a long time, I've noticed how much it sucks to be a monstrous PC. LA reduces the amount of class levels you get with absolutely no reward, and RHD replaces them with minimal gain (and most RHD are pretty bade). However, while playing a 3.p game here,I came across Pathfinder's interesting system that lets near-anything be used as a PC. And it got me thinking: what problems would be associated with just using it in 3.5 alone?

So now, instead of just thinking on my lonesome, I ask the playground: what kind of problems could come from using such a system? The main thing I can see it that it would actually turn RHD into something desirable, since it wouldn't count against you anymore.

Both CR and LA are borked systems to begin with. Better to decide any level adjustments to add on your own judgement of added power. That way you get more diversity in player races thanks to far less obvious bad options.

[Chronos]

ECL (which LA contributes to) and CR are two different things, and there's no reason to expect they should correspond. The things that are useful to a player are not the same things that are useful to a monster.

By way of illustration, consider two hypothetical abilities. Ability A is usable at will, and forces an enemy to save or fall asleep. Ability B is usable 1/week, and forces an enemy to save or die. Assume that everything else about the abilities (the save required, DC, what's immune to it, etc.) is identical. Which one of these two abilities would you prefer to have as a PC? Which one would you less like to see on a monster you're facing?

[Necroticplague]

ECL (which LA contributes to) and CR are two different things, and there's no reason to expect they should correspond. The things that are useful to a player are not the same things that are useful to a monster.

By way of illustration, consider two hypothetical abilities. Ability A is usable at will, and forces an enemy to save or fall asleep. Ability B is usable 1/week, and forces an enemy to save or die. Assume that everything else about the abilities (the save required, DC, what's immune to it, etc.) is identical. Which one of these two abilities would you prefer to have as a PC? Which one would you less like to see on a monster you're facing?To respond to your theoretical example: for both, the former is more powerful. The latter could, at worst, down one team member, while the former could down the whole team if the dice decide it.

Actually, there is: the rules for advancing monsters. One associated class level=1cr. 1LA=1 class level, due to having one means you don't have other. Therefor, assuming all PC class levels count as associated, CR=LA.

Yes, I'm aware CR and LA are both borked, but why have two borked systems when you can jut have one?

[Urpriest]

To respond to your theoretical example: for both, the former is more powerful. The latter could, at worst, down one team member, while the former could down the whole team if the dice decide it.

Actually, there is: the rules for advancing monsters. One associated class level=1cr. 1LA=1 class level, due to having one means you don't have other. Therefor, assuming all PC class levels count as associated, CR=LA.

Yes, I'm aware CR and LA are both borked, but why have two borked systems when you can jut have one?

They don't, though, so eventually your two metrics diverge anyway and you still get a monster with nonassociated class levels being higher level than a PC with those same levels.

In general, the problem with this method is that it will give PCs access to more HD than their level. Apart from a massive 3.5 faux pas, this is problematic because there are lots of abilities out there (Incarnum, ToB, SLA-feats) that scale primarily with HD. Getting them early would mean getting abilities that really aren't level-appropriate.

[OldTrees1]

To respond to your theoretical example: for both, the former is more powerful. The latter could, at worst, down one team member, while the former could down the whole team if the dice decide it.

Actually, there is: the rules for advancing monsters. One associated class level=1cr. 1LA=1 class level, due to having one means you don't have other. Therefor, assuming all PC class levels count as associated, CR=LA.

Yes, I'm aware CR and LA are both borked, but why have two borked systems when you can jut have one?

Your math is wrong. +1 assosicated class level = +1 CR, +1 class level = +1 ECL. The important difference is the "+".

However the real reason that there is a different metric for "use to a PC" and "use to a Encounter" is that Encounters last a short period of time while campaigns last a long period of time. Something with limited uses but each use is 10% better is going to be more useful to an Encounter than it is to a PC. In reverse something with unlimited uses but each use is 10% weaker is going to be more useful to a PC than it is to an encounter.

Take
10 rds per day of Fly(perfect) 60 vs constant Fly(average) 40.
Which would you pick as a PC?
Which would you pick as a DM creating an encounter?

Another example
10 rounds of +10 to all skills vs a constant +5 to all skills?
Which would you pick as a PC?
Which would you pick as a DM creating an encounter?

[lunar2]

i do think, and this would be a massive project, that monsters need to be rebuilt so that HD = ECL = CR. everything just has a "level", and you can glance at the level for all your necessary decisions and calculations. i think this is one of the important pieces for any project that would balance 3.5. that, and spells, of course. fix those two problems, and you're a long way towards a balanced game.

i also like 4E's monster classifications, specifically minion, elite, and solo monsters. minions can just be given minimum HP/HD, and give something like 1/2 XP and treasure. Elites would get the elite array and maximum HP for the first level, as well as the feats and skills possibly being customized, for maybe 20% extra XP and treasure. Solo monsters would have to actually be different species than other monsters. they'd have Max HP/HD, generally higher racial ability scores, and more/stronger abilities than other monsters of the same level. they'd probably give double XP and treasure. true dragons would be an example of a solo monster.

once that was done, it would just be up to the DM what monsters he'd allow the players to play, although solo monsters generally shouldn't be used unless the entire party is made up of solo monsters.