Improving Level Adjustments

[TiaC]

There are many monsters that would make perfectly playable characters if they only had a level adjustment. There are many monsters which are effectively barred from being PCs by unreasonable level adjustments. It is clear that whoever assigned level adjustments could have done a better job. That is what this thread is for. I will attempt to compile a list of accurate LAs for common monsters generated through community discussion. I would like us to come up with two numbers for each monster. The first would be a classic LA, the second would be a recommended ECL for the monster if modified such that HD=ECL.

The first monster I present for evaluation is the Nymph (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/nymph.htm).

My initial thoughts are +3 LA, ECL 10. Does anyone have a different opinion?

[peacenlove]

I would like to point out that if you make LA behave like class levels that give +0 or +1/2 BAB, 0+ constitution HP, all bad saves and 0 + int skill points, they become much more bearable.

Nymph is a 7th level druid / (kinda) 2nd level paladin with large bonuses to dexterity and mental stats, blinding aura, swim speed, potent damage reduction, a custom version of the feat ascetic mage, at will potent 5th level power and a built in cape of the mounteback traded for hit die/hit points, wild shape, animal companion, smite evil and aura of courage.
Not a frontliner but can take both the role of archer / ranged touch attacker, skill monkey and party face, but suffers from low hit die. I would say ECL 9 is more appropriate. She has some tricks that a 9th level druid can't replicate easily (at will stun!), much better wisdom (save dc's and spell slots), doesn't need as much wildshape because of her potent supernaturals but ultimately a druid would be more focused.

[TiaC]

I would like to point out that if you make LA behave like class levels that give +0 or +1/2 BAB, 0+ constitution HP, all bad saves and 0 + int skill points, they become much more bearable.

I was thinking that keeping the extra HD the same type made more sense. So the nymph would get more fey HD.


Nymph is a 7th level druid / (kinda) 2nd level paladin with large bonuses to dexterity, and mental stats, swim speed, potent damage reduction, a custom version of the feat ascetic mage, at will potent 5th level power and a built in cape of the mounteback traded for hit die/hit points, wild shape, animal companion, smite evil and aura of courage.
Not a frontliner but can take both the role of archer / ranged touch attacker, skill monkey and party face, but suffers from low hit die. I would say ECL 9 is more appropriate. She has some tricks that a 9th level druid can't replicate easily (at will stun!), much better wisdom (save dc's and spell slots) but ultimately a druid would be more focused.

I was being a little conservative still. With 9 fey HD at ECL 9 the nymph is definitely something I could see playing. I'm a little worried about the high saves and skills though. With 6 HD, +2 LA feels pretty strong, +3 seems more appropriate.

[Necroticplague]

It might be possible to take a page or two from Pathfinder. You can basically use the CR as LA, but RHD are actually free (thus making it possible to have HD>ECL). And the CR is automatically decreased by 1 every few levels up to a limit (essentially, its bought off for free, because a lot of the benefits of become less relevant as you level up). And as a side-bonus, since all monsters have a CR, it makes almost anything playable.

[TiaC]

It might be possible to take a page or two from Pathfinder. You can basically use the CR as LA, but RHD are actually free (thus making it possible to have HD>ECL). And the CR is automatically decreased by 1 every few levels up to a limit (essentially, its bought off for free, because a lot of the benefits of become less relevant as you level up). And as a side-bonus, since all monsters have a CR, it makes almost anything playable.

This is generally a better system than LA in its current form even if it tends to be broken in the opposite direction. However, HD>ECL causes as many problems as HD<ECL. The auto-buyoff is also nice, but not really for this thread. This is more about coming up with sane numbers for LA, because not every DM wants to learn a new system.

Believe me, I know all the alternatives, I like most of them, but that is not the purpose of this thread.

[AuraTwilight]

My method is as follows.

1. Look into Oslecamo's Improved Monster Classes; if the monster I want is covered, I use that.

2. Failing this, I eyeball any existing RHD and LA; usually the LA is way too much; in the case of dragons, it can be cut entirely; RHD are enough of a penalty.

3. Any LA that remains, I convert into Level Adjustment Dice, as per this house rule: http://dnd-wiki.org/wiki/Level_Adjustment_Dice_%283.5e_Variant_Rule%29

[TiaC]

My method is as follows.

1. Look into Oslecamo's Improved Monster Classes; if the monster I want is covered, I use that.

2. Failing this, I eyeball any existing RHD and LA; usually the LA is way too much; in the case of dragons, it can be cut entirely; RHD are enough of a penalty.

3. Any LA that remains, I convert into Level Adjustment Dice, as per this house rule: http://dnd-wiki.org/wiki/Level_Adjustment_Dice_%283.5e_Variant_Rule%29

Again, I am aware of alternatives and often use them. However, I would like to create a generally accepted list of LAs that accurately reflect the monster's power as a PC.

[Coidzor]

Interesting idea. Not sure what you'd do with templates though. I guess make them give some amount of RHD with the benefits of the template as the class features of those HD? :smallconfused:

I suppose Half-Dragon looks a lot better when it's 2-3 Dragon RHD instead of LA+3? :smallconfused:

Base Half-Fiend, Half-Fey, and Half-Celestial are probably also about 2-3 HD's worth. Though Outsider RHD are a fair bit nicer than Fey RHD. ...And you don't want to give too many RHD because those will progress the spells a bit, though, I suppose something like the Savage Progression/Monstrous Classes could be used there for granularity?

I lean allowing one of the HD to progress casting if going with the 3 RHD interpretation though.

[Chronos]

Quoth AuraTwilight:

2. Failing this, I eyeball any existing RHD and LA; usually the LA is way too much; in the case of dragons, it can be cut entirely; RHD are enough of a penalty.
RHD are no penalty at all for dragons or outsiders, or at least a small enough penalty that the other abilities that almost always come with them are easily worth it.

The problem I have with LA is that it's trying to express two different things: Whether a monster is playable, and how powerful the monster's abilities are in a player's hands. Worse than that, there are many different reasons why a monster might be unplayable, and the listing of just "LA: --" doesn't accommodate that. For instance, a monkey is LA -- because it has animal intelligence, but an awakened monkey doesn't have that issue, and thus should be playable... but there's no guidance to what its LA would be. An otyugh has a playable intelligence, but is LA -- because it lacks hands, but maybe your group decides that isn't an issue. A solar has playable intelligence and has hands, but is LA -- because it's too powerful, but that might be OK in an epic game.

Meanwhile, even if creatures have LA --, players can still get access to their abilities via Planar Ally, Polymorph and the like, so the problem that LA is supposed to be solving, it doesn't even actually touch. What I'd like to see would be for everything in the book to have a listed LA, a separate line in the description saying whether it's playable and why not, and then limit spells like Planar Binding and Polymorph by ECL, instead of by HD.

[Coidzor]

RHD are no penalty at all for dragons or outsiders, or at least a small enough penalty that the other abilities that almost always come with them are easily worth it.

True, they're basically an opportunity cost for other class features, but a strictly superior chassis to the vast majority of chassis.


The problem I have with LA is that it's trying to express two different things: Whether a monster is playable, and how powerful the monster's abilities are in a player's hands. Worse than that, there are many different reasons why a monster might be unplayable, and the listing of just "LA: --" doesn't accommodate that. For instance, a monkey is LA -- because it has animal intelligence, but an awakened monkey doesn't have that issue, and thus should be playable... but there's no guidance to what its LA would be. An otyugh has a playable intelligence, but is LA -- because it lacks hands, but maybe your group decides that isn't an issue. A solar has playable intelligence and has hands, but is LA -- because it's too powerful, but that might be OK in an epic game.

Meanwhile, even if creatures have LA --, players can still get access to their abilities via Planar Ally, Polymorph and the like, so the problem that LA is supposed to be solving, it doesn't even actually touch. What I'd like to see would be for everything in the book to have a listed LA, a separate line in the description saying whether it's playable and why not, and then limit spells like Planar Binding and Polymorph by ECL, instead of by HD.

Hmm, that does sound like a nice idea. :smallsmile: And making a very clear binary(or trinary) Playable vs. Non-Playable (vs. Cohort/Minion?) would (have) help(ed) prevent hedging/waffling by going "technically you can play it, but here's a massive LA to prevent anyone from actually doing so."

[ThisIsZen]

I had a thought that may not entirely be within the scope of this thread (for which I apologize) but which, if it's actually a bad idea, can be shot down fairly quickly and probably therefore doesn't deserve its own thread. This is more useful for the lower-level games, where you're starting at level 1 but would like to play a high-LA race, or even mid-level games where you don't want to be an ECL 12 character with only one class level.

Basically, if you want the flavor and not the mechanical strength, you COULD ask your DM to just let you start with a single level in a monster class, but this has kind of vastly inconsistent benefits - some races get a LOT more than others with a single level in their monster class, and some might even end up with like 1 or 2 HP.

The alternative thought I had was just to acid bath the racial stats of a character, giving benefits equivalent to a human or other PHB class - a minor +2/-2 ability score bonus, vision/skill points/etc., such that the race works as an LA 0 - including boiling away RHD. Then run LA buyback in reverse - let a character spend XP to purchase racial features as they go. That way, a nymph who wants to be a nymph for RP reasons and doesn't care about the mechanical benefits could both play out their concept and not bother with LA.

Granted, this means the DM has to do the work of breaking a race into purchasable benefits and assigning each an XP cost, but this is fairly similar to breaking a race apart into class levels anyway, and I think if you always target 'human, dwarf, elf' as your level of power equivalence when acid bathing a monster, it'd also have more consistent/less balance-skewing results than monster classes.

Basically I just want to let everyone start at 1st level with an actual base class instead of just levelling up in their race.

If this is too off-topic and/or is worth expanding on I'll move it to its own thread, and if so apologies for potential derailing.

[TiaC]

Interesting idea. Not sure what you'd do with templates though. I guess make them give some amount of RHD with the benefits of the template as the class features of those HD? :smallconfused:

I suppose Half-Dragon looks a lot better when it's 2-3 Dragon RHD instead of LA+3? :smallconfused:

Base Half-Fiend, Half-Fey, and Half-Celestial are probably also about 2-3 HD's worth. Though Outsider RHD are a fair bit nicer than Fey RHD. ...And you don't want to give too many RHD because those will progress the spells a bit, though, I suppose something like the Savage Progression/Monstrous Classes could be used there for granularity?

I lean allowing one of the HD to progress casting if going with the 3 RHD interpretation though.

Yes, something like that. I'd say Half-Fey is +2 LA/HD, but Half-Fiend and Half-Celestial probably fit better at +3 LA/HD.


RHD are no penalty at all for dragons or outsiders, or at least a small enough penalty that the other abilities that almost always come with them are easily worth it.

The problem I have with LA is that it's trying to express two different things: Whether a monster is playable, and how powerful the monster's abilities are in a player's hands. Worse than that, there are many different reasons why a monster might be unplayable, and the listing of just "LA: --" doesn't accommodate that. For instance, a monkey is LA -- because it has animal intelligence, but an awakened monkey doesn't have that issue, and thus should be playable... but there's no guidance to what its LA would be. An otyugh has a playable intelligence, but is LA -- because it lacks hands, but maybe your group decides that isn't an issue. A solar has playable intelligence and has hands, but is LA -- because it's too powerful, but that might be OK in an epic game.

Meanwhile, even if creatures have LA --, players can still get access to their abilities via Planar Ally, Polymorph and the like, so the problem that LA is supposed to be solving, it doesn't even actually touch. What I'd like to see would be for everything in the book to have a listed LA, a separate line in the description saying whether it's playable and why not, and then limit spells like Planar Binding and Polymorph by ECL, instead of by HD.

Thank you. This is exactly what I was thinking. There are a lot of cool monsters out there that remain unplayable. Even something as basic as a talking animal isn't playable. Look at all the options to shape-shift into one, and you can tell that many people want to play Puss in Boots.


I had a thought that may not entirely be within the scope of this thread (for which I apologize) but which, if it's actually a bad idea, can be shot down fairly quickly and probably therefore doesn't deserve its own thread. This is more useful for the lower-level games, where you're starting at level 1 but would like to play a high-LA race, or even mid-level games where you don't want to be an ECL 12 character with only one class level.

Basically, if you want the flavor and not the mechanical strength, you COULD ask your DM to just let you start with a single level in a monster class, but this has kind of vastly inconsistent benefits - some races get a LOT more than others with a single level in their monster class, and some might even end up with like 1 or 2 HP.

The alternative thought I had was just to acid bath the racial stats of a character, giving benefits equivalent to a human or other PHB class - a minor +2/-2 ability score bonus, vision/skill points/etc., such that the race works as an LA 0 - including boiling away RHD. Then run LA buyback in reverse - let a character spend XP to purchase racial features as they go. That way, a nymph who wants to be a nymph for RP reasons and doesn't care about the mechanical benefits could both play out their concept and not bother with LA.

Granted, this means the DM has to do the work of breaking a race into purchasable benefits and assigning each an XP cost, but this is fairly similar to breaking a race apart into class levels anyway, and I think if you always target 'human, dwarf, elf' as your level of power equivalence when acid bathing a monster, it'd also have more consistent/less balance-skewing results than monster classes.

Basically I just want to let everyone start at 1st level with an actual base class instead of just levelling up in their race.

If this is too off-topic and/or is worth expanding on I'll move it to its own thread, and if so apologies for potential derailing.

This sounds rather similar to Oslecamo's Monster Classes. Why don't you look at them?