The LA-Assignment Thread -1: Or, Inevitably Rejected

[GreatWyrmGold]

People have been talking about negative level adjustments almost since Inevitability's thread began, and the replies have always been the same: "Those can break the game with epic feats/prestige classes/etc coming online too fast, Inevitability won't consider them, take it to another thread." But nobody's cared enough to make that other thread.
I decided, "You know what? Might as well do it."

I'm laying some different ground rules for this thread. Since I'm starting late and don't have a ton of confidence in my ECL-evaluating abilities (and also because this is basically just an overflow from the main thread, and because I'm probably not going to keep a great schedule), I'm going to encourage other people to try evaluating monsters—especially ones that I don't, or using different criteria/methodology (more on that later). If you want to do the whole Inevitability catalogue, just make a reference post, edit it to include links to other posts, and I'll link to it here. If you only want to do one or a few monsters, but do a thorough job and I'll probably link it here, too. Hopefully, this doesn't dissolve into a chaotic mess where nobody understands what's going on...if it does, I'll have to figure something else out.

Anyways, my criteria and methodology are as follows. First, I assume a low-optimization, low- to medium-shenanigans game. As mentioned repeatedly in the main thread, a character of unusually high HD can cause some serious damage to a game with a higher level of optimization. For now, I'll also assume that the half-completed character sheets in the DMG's NPC section are roughly equivalent in power to the half-completed character sheets in the Monster Manual, but since they're missing different information, I'm perfectly willing to change that if people explain why I'm wrong (and in which direction) politely and thoroughly enough. Specifically, I will compare the standard monster statistics to barbarians, rogues, or maybe rangers, depending on which fits the monster's abilities best; it's a bit below the T3 "balance point," but I can probably live with that. Finally, I won't be handling anything beyond 20 HD or so. Part of that is because the DMG only goes up to level 20, but part is because I don't want to touch epic levels. Feel free to critique me on anything except that last bit.

That's probably everything I need to cover. Let's get started, shall we?


Archive

GreatWyrmGold's Guide to...Writing...oh, never mind.

Animated Object, McLargeHuge: -1 LA
Animated Object, Gargantuan: -6 LA (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?533018&p=22281061#post22281061)
Arrowhawk, Adult: -1 LA
Arrowhawk, Elder: -2 LA (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?533018&p=22286683#post22286683)
Athachi: -4 LA (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?533018&p=22290986#post22290986)
Evil Super-Basilisk: -1 LA (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?533018&p=22295199#post22295199)
Belkar Bittersmoke: -2 LA (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?533018&p=22301124#post22301124)
Bugbear: -1 LA (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?533018&p=22305844#post22305844)
Chaos Beast: -5⚠ LA (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?533018&p=22310323#post22310323)
Chuul: -1 LA (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?533018&p=22321321#post22321321)
Delver: -7 LA (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?533018&p=22330696#post22330696)
Derro: -1 LA (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?533018&p=22331238#post22331238)


Others' archive posts

Maybe I was foolish to hope anyone else would want to help tackle this?


Individual Monsters

Elder Arrowhawk: -5 to -7 LA (BrickTheToasted) (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?533018&p=22288645&viewfull=1#post22288645)

[GreatWyrmGold]

Our first monster is a three-in-one...

Animated Objects

https://orig01.deviantart.net/3cfd/f/2017/229/e/c/negative_level_adjustments__animated_objects_by_gr eatwyrmgold-dbkdfn1.png

(Geez, the corner being cut off looks so much worse on the forum. And it's taking up a lot more room. So, lessons for next drawing: Center it better and do it smaller.)

For simplicity, I'll be comparing the objects to the barbarian class without the special object characteristics. I'll be considering the possibilities in the final analysis, though.


Large
A Large animated object has an unusually high strength score and average dexterity, but its other attributes are nonexistent (sometimes literally). A 2rd-level barbarian has less than half the HP than a large animated object, but a slightly higher AC. The barbarian is slightly more capable at offense, assuming they pick up a greatsword or greataxe. The object’s saves are markedly inferior. Unsurprisingly, the barbarian has superior skills.
The animated object’s main edge is its construct traits, unsurprisingly. These provide it with a number of significant immunities, from poison to charm person. It is also, surprise surprise, large; however, it generally won’t be able to properly use the advantages of size while suffering the drawbacks. (Some objects will do better than others; I’m looking at you, statues!) On the other hand, the barbarian has uncanny dodge and rage—probably not equal to construct traits, but they certainly reduce the gap.
The default Large animated object is loosely comparable to a 2nd-level barbarian, but it has some abilities which are hard to directly compare. With a few decent ability score rolls, equipment, and a halfway-decent choice of object, an animated object could easily boost its power. Therefore, I’ll put the Large animated object at -1. It could probably reach +0 with a good choice of object.


Huge
A Huge animated object has a very high strength score, below-average dexterity, and its other attributes are (like its smaller cousin) nonexistent. A 5th-level barbarian has slightly over half the HP of the object, though its AC is significantly higher. Attacks are similar in attack bonuses and damage. The barbarian’s saves and skills are significantly superior.
Again, the Huge animated object’s special advantages are its hugeness and its object-ness. Again, the barbarian has rage and uncanny dodge (improved over level 2) and also trap sense.
I would give the animated object a slight edge over the barbarian, mostly for its durability. Given a halfway-decent choice of object, I’d say it deserves a -1, like its smaller counterpart. A particularly useless object could drag it down to -2, and a particularly minmaxy one (“You want to play an adamantine centaur statue?”) might bring it to +0.


Gargantuan
We’ve done this twice, just with slightly different numbers each time. The main difference is that, this time, the object’s slam has a good chance of outdamaging the barbarian’s weapon!
Let’s compare the object to a 10th-level barbarian. The barbarian has about three-fifths the object’s health and a somewhat worse attack (in reach, attack bonus, and especially damage); that said, the barbarian gets an iterative attack. Everything else about the object is inferior; AC, saves, skills, even speed. The object gets nothing new, while the barbarian gets all sorts of new toys (including a poor man’s hardness). The animated object loses in just about every way to the barbarian. Still, I’m loathe to lower the LA too much; I’ll go with -6 for now, with a hefty asterisk to add a couple of points if something looks fishy with those optional additions.



Of course, feel free to critique my suggestions. These are my first negative LA comparisons, so if my methods are flawed, those flaws are going to shine brightly here.

[lord_khaine]

Anyways, my criteria and methodology are as follows. First, I assume a low-optimization, low- to medium-shenanigans game. As mentioned repeatedly in the main thread, a character of unusually high HD can cause some serious damage to a game with a higher level of optimization. For now, I'll also assume that the half-completed character sheets in the DMG's NPC section are roughly equivalent in power to the half-completed character sheets in the Monster Manual, but since they're missing different information, I'm perfectly willing to change that if people explain why I'm wrong (and in which direction) politely and thoroughly enough. Specifically, I will compare the standard monster statistics to barbarians, rogues, or maybe rangers, depending on which fits the monster's abilities best; it's a bit below the T3 "balance point," but I can probably live with that. Finally, I won't be handling anything beyond 20 HD or so. Part of that is because the DMG only goes up to level 20, but part is because I don't want to touch epic levels. Feel free to critique me on anything except that last bit.

Well.. i do think this is a good starting point. Having a clear initial vision of the starting point is going to leave people with a lot less confusion about what the reference point is.
I also think Barbarians and/or rogues is making for good reference points when it comes to raw fighting power or skill based utility. I do think you should be playing a monster because you really want to or because it fits your character concept, and not because its going to make you more powerful.

[GreatWyrmGold]

I also think Barbarians and/or rogues is making for good reference points when it comes to raw fighting power or skill based utility.
"Raw fighting power" is the sum total of what you get from nearly all LA -0 critters.


I do think you should be playing a monster because you really want to or because it fits your character concept, and not because its going to make you more powerful.
Well, yeah. But in D&D, fighting is a core part of the experience (for better and for worse), and it's certainly relevant to figure out how your numbers should change (ie, how many class levels you get) to keep from throwing combat &c out of whack.

[InvisibleBison]

About animated objects: You repeatedly say that they have worse AC than a comparable barbarian. But the barbarian's AC entirely results from his equipment, and a PC animated object would have just as much equipment as a barbarian. Why aren't you accounting for the animated object's ability to buy equipment?

[MisterKaws]

Shapeshifting templated(+4 LA, +0 CR) Dvatis can go Windrider and HD-boost themselves(nothing says you can't pick yourself, as long as you fit in all the other rules) to epics easily, and there are probably other ways to do it, not to mention ubermount shenanigans, so I don't really see how adding another cheeser would be so broken.

[BrickTheToasted]

I've always been rather fond of the idea of using gestalt mechanics to make high-RHD monsters more playable, so I'm looking forward to what might come of this thread. I'll see if I can put together some speculation of my own once I find some time.

That said, I'm not sure I agree with the methodology here - both monster and NPC statblocks tend to vary pretty wildly and rarely reflect the conditions under which actual players will be making characters out of these things. Additionally, they fail to take advancement into account. For instance, you note that the animated objects have more hit points than an equal-leveled barbarian - but most of those hit points come from the size-based construct bonuses, which don't advance at all. The barbarian has larger hit dice and a (likely very high) constitution score, so it will rapidly outstrip the animated objects in terms of hit points as you add more levels. I prefer the more detailed method Inevitability tends to use.


Well.. i do think this is a good starting point. Having a clear initial vision of the starting point is going to leave people with a lot less confusion about what the reference point is.
I also think Barbarians and/or rogues is making for good reference points when it comes to raw fighting power or skill based utility. I do think you should be playing a monster because you really want to or because it fits your character concept, and not because its going to make you more powerful.
I've refrained from chiming in on this discussion up until now, because (a) I didn't bother making an account until today, and (B) I've seen Inevitability's thread argue it to death about a dozen times over in the last year. However, I have to pretty emphatically disagree with the sentiment here. I'd absolutely agree that it's fine to pick a race based on roleplaying preferences, rather than mechanical concerns - but any player who does that has already accepted the idea that their choice might not be "optimal". A half-orc wizard can make for an interesting character to play - but there's no denying that such a character will be a weaker wizard than a human, grey elf, or strongheart halfling. Is the player being "punished" for making a decision based on flavor rather than power? Arguably, yes. But that's just how 3.5 was designed. Half-orcs aren't balanced around the idea of making them equal to humans in wizarding prowess, they're balanced around being stereotypical, brutish beatsticks (and they aren't very good at that either, but that's irrelevant to this discussion). Similarly, if a player wants to build a fighter or monk, are they being "punished" compared to a player who wants a wizard or cleric? Again, one could argue that they are, but such a topic falls far outside the scope of this thread.

Perhaps even more importantly, if a player wants to put their character together based on roleplaying considerations rather than mechanical ones, they've already implicitly accepted that they consider the mechanics to be a secondary concern - and since LA is a purely mechanical element of the game, such a situation can't reasonably be considered here. It seems to me that when approaching a balance consideration such as assigning LA, the only reasonable mindset to use is that of the dispassionate optimizer: rationally analyzing the costs and benefits of the monster as a racial choice, without allowing external factors such as inter-class balance to interfere with the outcome. To do otherwise would be a disservice to players across the entire optimization spectrum.

As such, I feel that the ideal approach for assigning LA to a monster is to build a character of a standard race who fills a similar role, and use that character as a balance yardstick of sorts. Ideally, most monsters should fall squarely in the middle of the spectrum from "races ideal for the role" to "races with no relevant features at all", ignoring races that are blatantly unsuited for the job. For example, a monster that casts as a wizard should end up somewhere weaker than a human wizard, but stronger than a half-elf wizard, and definitely more powerful than a half-orc wizard or a monk.


Shapeshifting templated(+4 LA, +0 CR) Dvatis can go Windrider and HD-boost themselves(nothing says you can't pick yourself, as long as you fit in all the other rules) to epics easily, and there are probably other ways to do it, not to mention ubermount shenanigans, so I don't really see how adding another cheeser would be so broken.
It's true that HD > ECL is already possible, but that's something that a player would have to go out of their way to pull off - it involves a reasonable amount of book-diving, including Dragon Magazine, and any DM will have ample warning that the player is up to some serious shenanigans. Any DM confronted with this will have ample opportunity to spot the potential danger and ban it if desired, and any DM who allows it is likely aware of the risks involved and willing to handle the resulting weirdness. Allowing non-gestalt negative LA is something entirely different. First of all, it's not something that players can go out of their way to do, it's something that plays a fundamental role in making the creature not completely unplayable. And second, it doesn't necessarily raise the same red flags that the Shapeshifting Dvati Windrider does, so it's more likely to blindside unsuspecting, inexperienced DMs. Using gestalt mechanics allows these monsters to be brought up to playable power levels, without risking the weirdness associated with HD > ECL. It's just a more elegant situation all around.

[RoboEmperor]

You forgot grapple.

I've been using Gargantuan Animated Objects my entire d&d career, in the form of Secure Shelter (spell) + Ravid (3hd outsider at-will animate object).

They are unkillable, huge, huge reach, and their grapple out-grapples even 18hd outsiders, and this is just when I use a house. If I go for an actual statue, with legs and all, it becomes really fast. 50ft movespeed with wheels. Combine with like adamantium or something, it is indestructible since hardness works on energy damage, with increased hardness against fire, lightning, and especially cold. So when you say they are 6 levels behind barbarians, I have to cast my doubt here.

I assume you're using awaken construct so it gets feats.

Since it's not a naked animated object either you can give it magic armor to boost AC on top of other stuff.

edit: Perma-pinned Barbarian 20ft away from you = a barbarian that can't even scratch you.

[Mike Miller]

Is this thread specifically looking at the entries from Inevitability's thread with LA assignments of -0?

[BrickTheToasted]

I assume you're using awaken construct so it gets feats.
Assuming this thread works like Inevitability's, templates aren't considered or used unless the template is the thing specifically under review, so no. However, it is assumed that mindless creatures are granted an intelligence score through some means (DM fiat, perhaps), which would allow the animated object to gain feats and skill points.

[javcs]

Is this thread specifically looking at the entries from Inevitability's thread with LA assignments of -0?

Presumably.


--
--



As for the thread concept, I think we should first determine just how we're defining what a "Negative LA" is/does. I would argue that negative LA being an actual reduction of ECL to below RHD complicates balance unduly, and is a bad idea.


My personal preference for "Negative LA" would be that minimum ECL = RHD, but that the Negative LA gives that many levels of RHD + class gestalt levels. IE, a 8 RHD creature with a -2 LA, would start as an ECL 8 character, and 2 of it's 8 levels would be gestalt ones, RHD 8 // Class levels 2.
I'm undecided as to whether or not to require the class levels be associated or not, and how the gestalted class levels should be distributed across the RHD

[Mike Miller]

My personal preference for "Negative LA" would be that minimum ECL = RHD, but that the Negative LA gives that many levels of RHD + class gestalt levels. IE, a 8 RHD creature with a -2 LA, would start as an ECL 8 character, and 2 of it's 8 levels would be gestalt ones, RHD 8 // Class levels 2.
I'm undecided as to whether or not to require the class levels be associated or not, and how the gestalted class levels should be distributed across the RHD

I don't think the class levels need to be associated because at that point you are dictating character choices. People can choose half orc wizard even though it is odd, as the earlier example showed. If someone wants a caster from a beatstick for flavor, that is on them.

[javcs]

I don't think the class levels need to be associated because at that point you are dictating character choices. People can choose half orc wizard even though it is odd, as the earlier example showed. If someone wants a caster from a beatstick for flavor, that is on them.

As I said, I'm undecided about that. The reasoning behind it, though, would be that it's probably easier to evaluate and balance adding gestalted associated class levels.

Like, take a dragon for example - if it's got a negative LA of X, it probably gets more out of X levels of Sorcerer/PRCs, and probably needs fewer such levels to really be competent at ECL=RHD, than it would require levels of, say, Ranger, Barbarian, or Rogue.
Or, take one of the rest of the -0 creatures - which are, by and large, mundane beatsticks/brawlers. It's probably going to be easier to balance a Negative LA if we keep it that, instead of turning it into a gishy or skillmonkey/rogue hybrid.


So ... maybe different negative LAs for associated classes and non-associated classes. Or just one negative LA value.
Haven't finished working it out. A single value would doubtless be simpler for the DM and players, though, which means that that's probably the right approach.

Maybe just assume associated class levels for determining the negative LA value.

[Mike Miller]

As I said, I'm undecided about that. The reasoning behind it, though, would be that it's probably easier to evaluate and balance adding gestalted associated class levels.

Like, take a dragon for example - if it's got a negative LA of X, it probably gets more out of X levels of Sorcerer/PRCs, and probably needs fewer such levels to really be competent at ECL=RHD, than it would require levels of, say, Ranger, Barbarian, or Rogue.
Or, take one of the rest of the -0 creatures - which are, by and large, mundane beatsticks/brawlers. It's probably going to be easier to balance a Negative LA if we keep it that, instead of turning it into a gishy or skillmonkey/rogue hybrid.


So ... maybe different negative LAs for associated classes and non-associated classes. Or just one negative LA value.
Haven't finished working it out. A single value would doubtless be simpler for the DM and players, though, which means that that's probably the right approach.

Maybe just assume associated class levels for determining the negative LA value.

I agree it would be easier to assume associated class levels for the purpose of this thread. I just feel like if I were choosing a monster for my PC, I would far more easily do something against its nature than if I were taking a "normal" race. Perhaps that is just me.

[Lans]

I think the optimization point should be the same as what is in the other thread, we could do multiple balance points though.

I like the gestalt idea and that is probably more balanced than it just having ECL being lower than its hd

[lord_khaine]

Well, yeah. But in D&D, fighting is a core part of the experience (for better and for worse), and it's certainly relevant to figure out how your numbers should change (ie, how many class levels you get) to keep from throwing combat &c out of whack.

Yes... so thats why im saying you should not get higher numbers from being a monster, just because you would suck with the spellcaster levels you dont take.


I've refrained from chiming in on this discussion up until now, because (a) I didn't bother making an account until today, and (B) I've seen Inevitability's thread argue it to death about a dozen times over in the last year. However, I have to pretty emphatically disagree with the sentiment here. I'd absolutely agree that it's fine to pick a race based on roleplaying preferences, rather than mechanical concerns - but any player who does that has already accepted the idea that their choice might not be "optimal". A half-orc wizard can make for an interesting character to play - but there's no denying that such a character will be a weaker wizard than a human, grey elf, or strongheart halfling. Is the player being "punished" for making a decision based on flavor rather than power? Arguably, yes. But that's just how 3.5 was designed. Half-orcs aren't balanced around the idea of making them equal to humans in wizarding prowess, they're balanced around being stereotypical, brutish beatsticks (and they aren't very good at that either, but that's irrelevant to this discussion). Similarly, if a player wants to build a fighter or monk, are they being "punished" compared to a player who wants a wizard or cleric? Again, one could argue that they are, but such a topic falls far outside the scope of this thread.

Perhaps even more importantly, if a player wants to put their character together based on roleplaying considerations rather than mechanical ones, they've already implicitly accepted that they consider the mechanics to be a secondary concern - and since LA is a purely mechanical element of the game, such a situation can't reasonably be considered here. It seems to me that when approaching a balance consideration such as assigning LA, the only reasonable mindset to use is that of the dispassionate optimizer: rationally analyzing the costs and benefits of the monster as a racial choice, without allowing external factors such as inter-class balance to interfere with the outcome. To do otherwise would be a disservice to players across the entire optimization spectrum.

As such, I feel that the ideal approach for assigning LA to a monster is to build a character of a standard race who fills a similar role, and use that character as a balance yardstick of sorts. Ideally, most monsters should fall squarely in the middle of the spectrum from "races ideal for the role" to "races with no relevant features at all", ignoring races that are blatantly unsuited for the job. For example, a monster that casts as a wizard should end up somewhere weaker than a human wizard, but stronger than a half-elf wizard, and definitely more powerful than a half-orc wizard or a monk.

Firstly, welcome to the boards then.
And secondly, i do think its strange that you first start out how how you disagree with me, and then in the end dont manage to actually get a conclusion thats different from mine. Namely that you should not be more powerful for picking a monster.
Because you should remember this is only dealing with all the rejects from the previous threat, that might have been given a negative LA. There are no potential arcane casters here.

Anyway, back to the current topic. I must say that i really cant see why we should keep this sacret cow alive, and not just let some things have more racial HD than their ECL. I mean to start with a lot of their HD are going to be straight up inferior, potentially ending with a lower total HP and BAB than someone with dragon HD could have gotten on a lower number of HD.

So really, are there anyone that can actually make any gamebreaking examples with out current negative LA candidates, for why someone with for example 10 crappy HD should not be allowed to count as a level 8 character?

[BrickTheToasted]

And secondly, i do think its strange that you first start out how how you disagree with me, and then in the end dont manage to actually get a conclusion thats different from mine. Namely that you should not be more powerful for picking a monster.
No, I'm saying that a monster should be comparable in power to a standard character filling the same role or taking a comparable class. Which is quite different from balancing all the monsters against a single T3/T4 balance point. If a player wants to play a wizard, I think that a wizard-casting monster should be comparable in power to a wizard of a standard race, not to a middle-of-the-road rogue or barbarian. Because while I agree that you shouldn't be more powerful for picking a monster, I'd argue that you also shouldn't be weaker for picking a monster.

Because you should remember this is only dealing with all the rejects from the previous threat, that might have been given a negative LA. There are no potential arcane casters here.
What about all those LA -0 dragons with racial sorcerer casting?

So really, are there anyone that can actually make any gamebreaking examples with out current negative LA candidates, for why someone with for example 10 crappy HD should not be allowed to count as a level 8 character?
Take 10 levels of Ur-priest, then one level of whatever the hell you want. You now have ECL 19, 21 HD and thus can take Epic Spellcasting before epic levels. That's the main concern - it's not that the hit dice are too strong, it's that a huge number of prerequisites and other abilities are tied directly to your number of hit dice, and things get really weird when you have a bunch of HD earlier than it's supposed to be possible.

[Morphic tide]

Because you should remember this is only dealing with all the rejects from the previous threat, that might have been given a negative LA. There are no potential arcane casters here.
Most of the dragons actually got -0. The HD are just too numerous for the statline.


So really, are there anyone that can actually make any gamebreaking examples with out current negative LA candidates, for why someone with for example 10 crappy HD should not be allowed to count as a level 8 character?
One thing I can think of is feats, which are by HD, not ECL. So the Gargantuan gets two extra feats that other characters just flat out don't have and gets access to Epic feats significantly earlier. The other is that some HD can break certain mechanics, namely BAB and saves. Any Outsider or Dragon with negative LA has better-than-full BAB and extra levels worth of full saves. In addition to the extra skill ranks all things with extra HD have.

The "gestalt levels equal to -LA" thing gets most of the issues dealt with, and also keeps the power-fixing aspect of it. You still have to be ECL=HD, but you get PC abilities as needed. A Dragon won't break the game with extra levels worth of BAB and saves, and gets to keep their near-perfect chassis for all their RHD. They just happen to be able to get extra levels of Sorcerer casting that aren't part of their monster statline.

[zlefin]

simpler to just say you need ECL 21+ to get epic stuff.

[Morphic tide]

simpler to just say you need ECL 21+ to get epic stuff.

That's actually what the SRD says, but there's rules that override that line. And besides that, extra HD still give more feats, which is still a problem. And the chassis of RHD can be quite good, particularly Dragons and Outsiders, which causes issues from greater-than-full BAB giving iteratives early, in particularly extreme cases outright giving extra iteratives.

[BrickTheToasted]

BAB above 20 explicitly doesn't grant more than the usual four iteratives if memory serves, but early feat acquisition and earlier access to iteratives are indeed notable concerns. Not to mention the issue with max skill ranks, which could be an extremely powerful early entry trick.

Essentially, it's possible to make ECL < HD work, but it requires so many houserules to so many areas of the game that it's just not worth it. The gestalt solution is just simpler and more elegant, since it minimizes interaction with other mechanics, thus lessening the possibility of unforeseen side effects.

[lord_khaine]

No, I'm saying that a monster should be comparable in power to a standard character filling the same role or taking a comparable class. Which is quite different from balancing all the monsters against a single T3/T4 balance point. If a player wants to play a wizard, I think that a wizard-casting monster should be comparable in power to a wizard of a standard race, not to a middle-of-the-road rogue or barbarian. Because while I agree that you shouldn't be more powerful for picking a monster, I'd argue that you also shouldn't be weaker for picking a monster.

Its just unfortunately impossible to both not make things less and more powerful than a regular character. And in that case i mean its better to accept things as a little weaker than a little stronger.


What about all those LA -0 dragons with racial sorcerer casting?

Looking though them they are just to far behind on their racial sorcerer levels. I will not say they are potential arcane casters. Or at least not ones that should be balanced as such.


Take 10 levels of Ur-priest, then one level of whatever the hell you want. You now have ECL 19, 21 HD and thus can take Epic Spellcasting before epic levels. That's the main concern - it's not that the hit dice are too strong, it's that a huge number of prerequisites and other abilities are tied directly to your number of hit dice, and things get really weird when you have a bunch of HD earlier than it's supposed to be possible.

So what? its a ECL 19 character. 9th level spells have already been in play for a couple levels at that point. Its far past the point where players need to coorperate with the GM to avoid breaking things.


One thing I can think of is feats, which are by HD, not ECL. So the Gargantuan gets two extra feats that other characters just flat out don't have and gets access to Epic feats significantly earlier. The other is that some HD can break certain mechanics, namely BAB and saves. Any Outsider or Dragon with negative LA has better-than-full BAB and extra levels worth of full saves. In addition to the extra skill ranks all things with extra HD have.

Again.. why is this such an issue? The fighter get a ton of feats that others dont get. Low-level epic feats dont seem that impressive compared to what you can do with a focused character build.
And why does it break the game if outsiders or dragons have better bab/saves? that just translates to a better attack bonus or a better chance of making your save.
But a raging barbarian already hits better than someone who is not raging but also have full saves. And a Paladin can easily have better saves than someone who just got a few additional HD's worth of saves.

Honestly all of that mainly seems like a group of sacret cows. The main reason i could see the gestalt option would be to be able to press in more class levels.

[Inevitability]

Best of luck with this thread, GreatWyrmGold! I'll make sure to drop by in the future and help out here.

Want me to link this thread in the archive?

[Daedroth]

But nobody's cared enough to make that other thread.

In fact, i did, but the thread died

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?506299-Negative-LA-Assignment-thread&p=21399396#post21399396

[Lans]

Why not do both the ECL less than HD, and the free gestalt models and see how they stack up

[GreatWyrmGold]

About animated objects: You repeatedly say that they have worse AC than a comparable barbarian. But the barbarian's AC entirely results from his equipment, and a PC animated object would have just as much equipment as a barbarian. Why aren't you accounting for the animated object's ability to buy equipment?
Because no smith in the world is going to make table armor. (Statues are one of those "this needs a higher LA than typical" objects which makes animated objects a really terrible place to start.)
And there are a fair number of things that typical Monster Manual stat blocks have and the DMG example characters don't. I'm not sure how much each of the omitted sections matters, or how much a player choosing various aspects would affect their power. So until I get someone giving me more detailed advice, I'm going to assume that DMG NPCs and MM monsters are about equally incomplete and unoptimized.

Of course, since I forgot about this post for a while, it's entirely possible that someone's done so.



That said, I'm not sure I agree with the methodology here - both monster and NPC statblocks tend to vary pretty wildly and rarely reflect the conditions under which actual players will be making characters out of these things. Additionally, they fail to take advancement into account. For instance, you note that the animated objects have more hit points than an equal-leveled barbarian - but most of those hit points come from the size-based construct bonuses, which don't advance at all. The barbarian has larger hit dice and a (likely very high) constitution score, so it will rapidly outstrip the animated objects in terms of hit points as you add more levels. I prefer the more detailed method Inevitability tends to use.
And I'd prefer being able to do such analyses. But I don't have enough confidence in my op-intuition (or op-knowledge to rely on anything else) to analyze that in any way other than taking a bunch of random levels and comparing, say, Animated Object+Brb X to Brb X+Y to see how everything ends up.
I realize it's not ideal. That's kinda part of why I encouraged other people to weigh in.


I've refrained from chiming in on this discussion up until now, because (a) I didn't bother making an account until today...
Hooray, I accidentally played a part in someone unlurking themselves!



As for the thread concept, I think we should first determine just how we're defining what a "Negative LA" is/does. I would argue that negative LA being an actual reduction of ECL to below RHD complicates balance unduly, and is a bad idea.
Probably. But the way I see it, if I can figure out what level a given monster is roughly equivalent to, that number can be used for straight ECL changes or gestalting or pretty much anything else.



Best of luck with this thread, GreatWyrmGold! I'll make sure to drop by in the future and help out here.

Want me to link this thread in the archive?
Sure! Maybe it'll help me remember to actually do this...

[GreatWyrmGold]

With animated objects out of the way, we can move onto something which has a solidly-defined set of statistics. How wonderful!


Arrowhawks

Arrowhawks all have similar qualities—flight, electricity rays, no thumbs, etc. Inevitability said that the kids make decent PCs, so let's see how they stack up once they've grown up!


Adult
An adult arrowhawk has higher AC and saving throws than a 6th-level barbarian, plus outsider traits and a handful of useful resistances and okay immunities (though significantly fewer hit points). It also has above-average mental ability scores, good Strength and Constitution, and incredible Dexterity. But what does it do with those? An arrowhawk can only make one attack per round, unless it gets a mouthpick weapon (which, okay, it probably would if it was going into melee combat), while the barbarian gets two, which have lower attack bonuses (especially the second) but likely deal more damage even before raging. In short, the arrowhawk is tougher (until it starts getting hit), but the barbarian can do more.
All things considered, the two of them are probably about equal; I certainly can't bring the LA lower, both for the 6th-level barbarian and the 5th-level warlock who can already replicate the arrowhawk's two claims to fame). Not to mention that advancement opportunities are limited; maybe take rogue and try to get in those tasty ranged sneak attacks somehow? -1 seems fair.


Elder
A 13th-level barbarian still has a slight hit point lead on the arrowhawk, as well as a higher AC. However, the arrowhawk's attacks are comparable, its saving throws are still superior, its ability scores are even better, and it has that same grab-bag of defensive traits. The arrowhawk probably has a slight lead, but it would be inferior in most ways to a 14th-level barbarian. And...well...I've been trying to stay T4, in part to keep these estimates conservative, but this monster really needs to be compared to the warlock. There's nothing that an arrowhawk can do that a mid-leveled warlock can't do better. It needs all the help it can do in the field, especially once it starts leveling up. A level adjustment of -2 was my first estimate when comparing the elder arrowhawk to barbarians; however, due to salient points by others (including an analysis by BrickTheToasted), I'll reduce it to -4. (I'm not accounting for swordsages and stuff, because...well, I don't have the books or experience with them, nor a set of preset statistics across all levels. So I'm trying to stay a bit consistent.)

(P.S. Remind me to get some pictures ready.)

[Inevitability]

Sure! Maybe it'll help me remember to actually do this...

It's been added.

[Dimers]

My personal preference for "Negative LA" would be that minimum ECL = RHD, but that the Negative LA gives that many levels of RHD + class gestalt levels.

A graceful idea. I like it. :smallsmile:


I've been trying to stay T4, in part to keep these estimates conservative, but this monster really needs to be compared to the warlock.

Many people do consider the warlock T4, so that's fine. So using javcs's gestalt idea, we're comparing, say, warlock 15 against elder arrowhawk 15//warlock 2? Or //rogue 2, or //barbarian 2, something like that? If that's the case, I'd definitely argue for a stronger negative LA.

[Lans]

Because no smith in the world is going to make table armor. (
s...

Give the smith enough gold and they will make armor for a kite

[RoboEmperor]

With animated objects out of the way

I see you've decided to completely ignore my objections. Alright.

[Daedroth]

Why not do both the ECL less than HD, and the free gestalt models and see how they stack up

Well, if you would help with feedback I can retake my thread :smallwink:.

[BrickTheToasted]

I'd love to provide a bit of a breakdown here, but I'm away from my books at the moment and d20srd is giving me nothing but errors.

My gut feeling, though, is that the Elder Arrowhawk is going to need something a lot better than -2 to keep up with even a casual party at those levels.

[Daedroth]

I'd love to provide a bit of a breakdown here, but I'm away from my books at the moment and d20srd is giving me nothing but errors.

My gut feeling, though, is that the Elder Arrowhawk is going to need something a lot better than -2 to keep up with even a casual party at those levels.

Here you have:
http://dndsrd.net/monstersA.html

[BrickTheToasted]

While the younger arrowhawks could be credible candidates for rogue-types with their good chassis and solid dex scores, the elder seems pretty well doomed to the life of a beatstick. While it retains the high dex, its massive number of RHD preclude stacking sneak attack to a reasonable amount of damage, and large size isn't exactly conducive to sneaking. Many of its other abilities aren't particularly amazing, either: the ray does laughable damage, the bite needs to be taken up by a mouthpick weapon for the arrowhawk to have any hope of being useful, and while innate flight is nice, 60' is a thoroughly unimpressive speed at these levels. Oh, and the large size comes without reach. On the other hand, it gets impressive ability scores, a moderate natural armor bonus, and some reasonably decent immunities. It's not nearly enough to make up for 15 RHD, but it's a start.

All in all, what would it take to tempt me to play an elder arrowhawk? Well, my first thought was that this thing could make a decent swordsage, since it makes good use of the ability scores, and the 15 outsider hit dice will put that last iterative in easy reach. So then the question becomes: how many initiator levels would I be willing to lose in exchange for the ability score bonuses, immunities, and improved BAB? I'm not going to consider the arrowhawk's other abilities, because the ray is laughable, large size without reach is more of a drawback than a bonus, and flight just saves you some cash that you'll then have to spend on mouthpick weapons and nonhumanoid armor. LA -5 might be playable, but at that point you're crippling your swordsage progression pretty badly - you lose five initiator levels, you'll have roughly half the maneuvers known/readied of a normal swordsage, and your other class features are ten levels behind (for example, you get evasion at ECL 19, and never get improved evasion at all). So while -5 could be acceptable as a conservative estimate, I suspect that -6 or even -7 could very well be in order.

On a side note, I get that it's supposed to be carried over from the arrowhawk's younger days, but it still amuses me that the elder arrowhawk has Weapon Finesse, despite its strength being higher than its dexterity. Also:

An elder arrowhawk (41 to 75 years old) is about 20 feet long with a wingspan of 30 feet and a weight of about 800 pounds.

Space/Reach: 10 ft./5 ft.

[GreatWyrmGold]

I see you've decided to completely ignore my objections. Alright.
On first reading, I thought BrickTheToasted had rebutted them. (I was kind of in a hurry; I forgot about the thread and had a couple dozen posts to sort through.) So I'll try to address them.

You forgot grapple.
I've been using Gargantuan Animated Objects my entire d&d career, in the form of Secure Shelter (spell) + Ravid (3hd outsider at-will animate object).
They are unkillable, huge, huge reach, and their grapple out-grapples even 18hd outsiders, and this is just when I use a house. If I go for an actual statue, with legs and all, it becomes really fast. 50ft movespeed with wheels. Combine with like adamantium or something, it is indestructible since hardness works on energy damage, with increased hardness against fire, lightning, and especially cold. So when you say they are 6 levels behind barbarians, I have to cast my doubt here.
I assume you're using awaken construct so it gets feats.
Since it's not a naked animated object either you can give it magic armor to boost AC on top of other stuff.
edit: Perma-pinned Barbarian 20ft away from you = a barbarian that can't even scratch you.
I believe I specifically said some form of "If your player makes themselves an adamantine object or otherwise tries to abuse the system, you need to jack up the LA" for each size of animated object. Also, while hardness does acts as universal energy resistance, it does not let you reduce energy damage the way it does against objects. (Those rules are, unsurprisingly, separate from the hardness rule.) You may argue that animated objects, being objects, follow all object damage rules, but this is weakened by the rule for critical/nonlethal immunity specifically mentions that animated objects are still immune—and specifies that this is not because they are objects, but because they are constructs.
(Citation) (https://web.archive.org/web/20161110233437/http://www.d20srd.org/srd/exploration.htm#hardness) A barbarian of 18th level is going to have comparable hit points and superior AC (thanks to size and Dexterity bonuses, this applies even if you can somehow get the house to wear armor, a Ring of Protection, and so on); the object only has hardness. And let's not forget that the barbarian has some defensive abilities of his own. If you're not trying to cheese it by saying you shouldn't get more LA for playing a giant wheeled adamantine statue or something, the gargantuan animated object is at best on par with a barbarian even judging on durability alone. Yes, the house will exceed the barbarian in durability if we reduce it to the equivalent of 12th level, but that matters little. As Inevitability has repeatedly noted, even literal invulnerability wouldn't help if you couldn't do enough to make someone want to attack you.
And don't get me wrong, a +31 grapple bonus is a pretty decent trick. But I've personally never seen a grapple build suggested as particularly effective on anything other than a monk, which makes me think that non-monk classes generally have something better to do with their actions. And +32 grapple isn't even all that special against martial classes! An 18th-level martial character can easily get their grapple bonus into the high 20's without even specializing in it, with only Strength and BAB. (A 20th-level orc barbarian built with the DMG charts would have +33 without Improved Grapple. That's not "permanently pinned" material.) At 12th level, a barbarian would be about 15 points behind...which is great if you're fighting barbarians. But a 12th-level party is more likely to be fighting the likes of leonals (+20 grapple), eleven-headed hydras (+25), purple worms (+40), and colossal monstrous scorpions (+58)—you know, monsters. Some of which have eerie powers like incorporeality, teleportation, and flight, which would make them largely immune to grapplers.
But even when you fight humanoid NPCs with class levels...18th level is too much. Every NPC should have some way of getting out of sticky situations by that point—teleportation, if nothing else. Even by 12th level, you're not going to easily keep a spellcaster (or someone with the right magic item) down. 12th-level casters have access to 6th-level spells like word of recall or contingency, not to mention lower-levels spells like telekinesis, hold monster, teleport, freedom of movement...and many of these would be available to non-casters in use-activated or even continuous-effect magic items. There are just too many workarounds.

TL;DR: A grappling-based gargantuan animated object would be a viable character concept, but not compared to other characters of comparable HD.



The elder arrowhawk is too weak at -2.
That's a fair point.
Comparing it to an 11th-level barbarian, the elder arrowhawk has far superior defenses, distinctly better attack rolls, and comparable damage output. With that kind of chassis, I can't lower the LA too much...especially since I'm explicitly not comparing them to swordsages. (Maybe I would if I had the book and experience with initiators...but maybe not.) Still, LA lowered somewhat to account for well-reasoned user feedback.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Athach

The athach offers an impressive chassis—incredible Strength and Constitution, above-average Dexterity and Wisdom, Huge size, and three arms. At first glance, it compares quite favorably to a 14th-level barbarian—slightly higher HP but lower AC, lower attack bonuses but more attacks (and more damage), comparable or superior saves, etc. The barbarian has some useful abilities like Rage and DR, while the athach has its size, third arm, and a poisonous bite. (Also rock-throwing, which is kinda neat.) However, this comparison doesn't hold up to further inspection.
Athaches need full attacks to have any chance of using some of their major strengths (an extra arm, bite, etc), and multiweapon fighting penalties tank its attack bonuses almost as much as iterative attacks. While the Strength damage of an athach's bite could be a significant debuff, the initial 1d6 isn't enough to matter on the scale of typical combats; physically-weak enemies would still take multiple bites to incapacitate, while ones that use Strength almost always have high Fortitude saves. It's not useless, but it's certainly use-impaired. Also, being an 18-foot tall cowardly mutant giant tends to affect your ability to function in noncombat situations, and unless you subscribe to the defunct Vaarsuvius school of thought on explosion-based diplomacy (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0696.html), it's not going to be a positive effect.
All things considered, I have to conclude that athaches are at about LA -4. At that point, their standard attacks and defenses are superior to a non-raging barbarian, but they will be able to compete at peak performance.

(Thanks to the readers for helping me sort this one out.)

[BrickTheToasted]

Comparing it to an 11th-level barbarian, the elder arrowhawk has far superior defenses, distinctly better attack rolls, and comparable damage output.
The problem is that with this gestalt model, you're explicitly not comparing an arrowhawk against a barbarian 11, you're comparing an arrowhawk//barbarian X against a barbarian 15. The arrowhawk doesn't get any extra hit dice out of a negative LA, so it's not really fair to evaluate it against a lower-level chassis. That's a key difference against conventional positive LA, and it's an important thing to keep in mind - it's the difference between an arrowhawk/barbarian 4 vs. an arrowhawk//barbarian 4, and those are two very different things.

As for the Athach, it does have reasonably good ability scores, but it also has 14 abysmal HD. The loss of BAB and poor saves really don't do it any favors in its capacity as a beatstick. The third arm doesn't do it much good either - its attack bonuses are far too low to support multiweapon fighting (+12 isn't even close to an acceptable attack roll at ECL 14), and I believe it would need a fourth arm to use the oversized multi-arm weapons from Savage Species. I guess it could enable sword-and-board with a greatsword, but that's not exactly an impressive trick, especially since level 14 is past the point where AC stops being a meaningful defense. The poison won't be great either - it doesn't do enough str damage to outright incapacitate low-str opponents like casters, and high-str opponents will have no trouble making the save.

I don't see a lot of options for making this thing work. Any halfway competent barbarian 14 will be putting out vastly superior attack rolls and utterly incomparable damage rolls. Huge size (and more importantly, huge reach) could present some opportunities, but you'd have to give the player enough gestalt levels to recover from the awful chassis provided by aberration HD. If it were a monstrous humanoid it might be decent with just a few extra class levels, but as an aberration? It would take quite a few points of negative LA before I'd even give the Athach a second glance.

[GreatWyrmGold]

The problem is that with this gestalt model, you're explicitly not comparing an arrowhawk against a barbarian 11, you're comparing an arrowhawk//barbarian X against a barbarian 15.
That's a critique of my methodology, not my analysis (which explicitly doesn't do that). And it's a fair critique! I've never pretended that my methodology is the best one; in fact, it may be the worst one anyone would seriously consider. But if I accepted the gestalt model as the canon model for this thread and gave it a more thorough method, what would I need to do? I'd probably need to build a gestalt arrowhawk/barbarian, and since I'd probably do a better job than the default DMG ones (if only by filling in all the blanks), I'd probably have to build an equally-leveled barbarian. That's starting to rely too much on my ability to evaluate character-optimization choices, not to mention being more work than I'm interested in putting into this. (I'm not Inevitability; he'd probably manage both just fine.) Again, this is why I was encouraging other people to give it a shot.

As for the Athach, it does have reasonably good ability scores, but it also has 14 abysmal HD. The loss of BAB and poor saves really don't do it any favors in its capacity as a beatstick. The third arm doesn't do it much good either - its attack bonuses are far too low to support multiweapon fighting (+12 isn't even close to an acceptable attack roll at ECL 14)...[/quote]
+12? That doesn't sound right...
checks the Monster Manual
Huh. I must have been focusing on single-attack bonuses. D'oh, shoulda proofread the buffer entries better. Well, luckily, I only had those three in my buffer.
Wait, no, that's not lucky...erm...

Back on track! Focusing on full attacks, I don't think I can go below -3 or -4. At -3, the athach has almost the same AC and four attack bonuses barely below the barbarian's first, but a third more health and much more damage. I'm inclined to say -2 or -3. What do you think?

[BrickTheToasted]

That's a critique of my methodology, not my analysis (which explicitly doesn't do that). And it's a fair critique! I've never pretended that my methodology is the best one; in fact, it may be the worst one anyone would seriously consider. But if I accepted the gestalt model as the canon model for this thread and gave it a more thorough method, what would I need to do? I'd probably need to build a gestalt arrowhawk/barbarian, and since I'd probably do a better job than the default DMG ones (if only by filling in all the blanks), I'd probably have to build an equally-leveled barbarian. That's starting to rely too much on my ability to evaluate character-optimization choices, not to mention being more work than I'm interested in putting into this. (I'm not Inevitability; he'd probably manage both just fine.) Again, this is why I was encouraging other people to give it a shot.
That's very fair. Even with your current method, I'm sure this thread is a lot of work, and doing full breakdowns like that can get pretty exhausting. That said, I think you just brought up the main thing that bothers me about your method: you're absolutely right that you could do a much better job than the default DMG characters. I think the vast majority of players would as well, even players who don't consciously optimize in any way. And when you're balancing the monsters against such a low bar, the hilariously weak DMG characters will make the monsters look inordinately powerful by comparison. For example:

At -3, the athach has almost the same AC and four attack bonuses barely below the barbarian's first, but a third more health and much more damage.
That's not an indication of a powerful monster, that's an indication that the DMG barbarian is completely incapable of meaningfully contributing in a fight. An ECL 11 barbarian can easily have attack bonuses in the 18-20 range, and damage numbers that put the Athach's to shame. And that's without ever straying into "optimization" territory.

I very much appreciate the effort you've put into this thread, but with the current methodology, I worry that it will lead to the monsters getting the short straw due to skewed benchmarks of comparison. I'll probably just continue advocating for stronger LAs on monsters that I believe need them, and do some more writeups like I did for the arrowhawk when we get to monsters that interest me (a category which notably does not include the athach. I mean, it's a weird-looking giant with a third arm tacked on. Who comes up with this stuff?)

On a side note, if I was actually interested in this thing, I'd probably build it as a dungeoncrasher, not a barbarian. That puts the high strength to good use, while sidestepping the BAB issue from all those terrible RHD. So if anyone is interested in doing a comparative breakdown of it, that might be a good place to start.

[javcs]

Well, when it comes to beatsticks/brawler-type monsters, I'd be inclined towards erring on being over-generous with the negative LA.

Especially considering that if you're comparing to the DMG NPCs, one needs to take into account the fact that (a) NPCs have significantly inferior WBL relative to PCs, and (b) WotC has trouble optimizing its way out of a paper bag.



I'd probably err on the side of being over-generous with negative LA for most creatures, except perhaps those with meaningful racial casting.

[Telok]

and (b) WotC has trouble optimizing its way out of a paper bag.

WotC has problems making characters period. I recall a thread that checked most of the sample characters in the books and found that almost all of them were incorrect or illegal in some way.

[Dimers]

I'd go -4 on the athach. Huge size is a nice combat advantage, but at the same time it's an adventuring liability, physically and often socially too.

[lord_khaine]

I actually think the Gold Dragons method of comparison is pretty valid. Currently he is comparing 2 unoptimised sourced from the relatively fair assumption that monster and NPC are about equally badly build.
And yes, im certain that even with just core sources a Barbarian could be build with much higher numbers. But in the same way you could do something much more effective with the monster chassis.

Anyway, back to the Athach. I guess -3 or -4 are both equally valid. It is kinda hard to go any lower than that, but even so i still dont think anyone is going to want to play this anyway.

[GreatWyrmGold]

That said, I think you just brought up the main thing that bothers me about your method: you're absolutely right that you could do a much better job than the default DMG characters. I think the vast majority of players would as well, even players who don't consciously optimize in any way. And when you're balancing the monsters against such a low bar, the hilariously weak DMG characters will make the monsters look inordinately powerful by comparison.
On the other hand, as someonenoone11 and others have pointed out, the Monster Manual entries are also horribly unoptimized, and moreover incomplete. Perhaps most notably, they (typically) don't have any magic items. (Often, they lack gear entirely...though the athach isn't one of those creatures.)


I'll probably just continue advocating for stronger LAs on monsters that I believe need them, and do some more writeups like I did for the arrowhawk when we get to monsters that interest me.
I'm glad! More opinions are always good, especially when the main voice is so un-confident in their own abilities.


On a side note, if I was actually interested in this thing, I'd probably build it as a dungeoncrasher, not a barbarian. That puts the high strength to good use, while sidestepping the BAB issue from all those terrible RHD. So if anyone is interested in doing a comparative breakdown of it, that might be a good place to start.
I'm not sure what the differences between dungeoncrashers and fighters are, and don't have the book required to check. (Which is another reason I'm trying to stick to PHB classes.)



...but even so i still dont think anyone is going to want to play this anyway.
I shudder to think of what will happen when I get to things people might want to play. Hopefully, I will have sharpened my skills enough to do better...


Since I've had some time to think and some time to type, I've rewritten the athach's entry. -4 seems to be the consensus answer, so I'll go with that.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Greater Abyssal Basilisk

Or is it the Abyssal Greater Basilisk? I can never tell...anyways, let's start by analyzing the basilisk's

As with most of these creatures, the basilisk has more HP and a lower AC than any comparable barbarian (though the gaps decrease when the barbarian rages). By 16th level, the barbarian’s primary attack is comparable to an abyssal basilisk’s only attack, though likely dealing less damage. Its hit points are also starting to be comparable, though the AC is still several points ahead. Much more than a -2 would probably make the basilisk a better beatstick than the barbarian...and we haven’t gotten to the petrifying gaze.
Granted, its DC is only 21. An aboleth mage (CR 17) would make their save 75% of the time, with tougher enemies like old black dragons (CR 16) making the save 90-95% of the time. But there’s always the possibility of rolling a 1, and even a mere 5-25% chance of an enemy turning to stone, each round, for every enemy within 30 feet, on top of other actions, is hardly nothing. Even with the disadvantages that a horrible creature from the lower planes with no opposable thumbs would face, I’m not sure I can give the greater abyssal basilisk a level adjustment below -1.

Though this still begs the question...is there any such thing as a lesser abyssal basilisk? Or an infernal greater basilisk? (Or, for that matter, an infernal lesser basilisk?)

[BrickTheToasted]

I'm not sure what the differences between dungeoncrashers and fighters are, and don't have the book required to check. (Which is another reason I'm trying to stick to PHB classes.)
It's a fighter variant that gives up the bonus feats at 2nd and 6th, in exchange for the ability to deal damage by bull rushing people into walls. It also gets some minor bonuses against traps, but no one really cares about those - the bull rush trick is the real star of the show. It's useful for a high-strength, low-BAB chassis like the Athach, since bull rush just uses a strength check rather than an attack roll.

I shudder to think of what will happen when I get to things people might want to play.
Don't forget that Dragons are coming up before too long. And considering the nature of this thread, we won't even get to take the easy way out and write them all off as -0 like Inevitability did. Won't that be fun?

[GreatWyrmGold]

Don't forget that Dragons are coming up before too long. And considering the nature of this thread, we won't even get to take the easy way out and write them all off as -0 like Inevitability did. Won't that be fun?
Yeah...luckily, they get to 21+ HD quickly enough that I can write many of the older dragons off as "beyond the scope of this thread".

[Dimers]

Wow. Abyssal greater basilisk -- now that is a horrible build. Large size without reach, no DR or SR worth squat, uninspiring stat bonuses, a junk skill list with -7 Intelligence, 20' speed, a single natural attack (and no limbs for wielding typical weapons) ...

An 11th-level barbarian or rogue could put this to shame when optimized to an equal degree, which would indicate at least LA -7. But I wouldn't consider it playable in an 18th-level group with just seven gestalt levels, not even gestalted with a tier 1 class. I don't want to be extreme but I'd call this -9 LA. :smallyuk:

EDIT: Whoops, hold it, missed the upgraded save DC for the gaze attack. Okay, maybe -7 LA. Still nothing I'd want to try to play, myself.

[GreatWyrmGold]

An 11th-level barbarian or rogue could put this to shame when optimized to an equal degree, which would indicate at least LA -7.
Well, assuming that the MM and DMG statistics are equally (un)optimized as I have been...
An 11th-level barbarian has four more points of AC, more skill points, greater rage, fast movement, and a couple points of DR. On the other hand, the basilisk has almost twice as many hit points, (only half again as many if the barbarian rages), an attack bonus ten points higher, likely more damage, and some useful defensive abilities. Resistance to two of the most common energy types, DR 10/magic, and spell resistance which would still be relevant at that level. Oh, and the petrifying gaze. Given a bit of optimization (and equipment), I can't help but suspect that a greater abyssal basilisk could still surpass a raging 11th-level barbarian.
I've been wrong before, but if I'm wrong now, I need a bit more detail on why.


But I wouldn't consider it playable in an 18th-level group with just seven gestalt levels, not even gestalted with a tier 1 class. I don't want to be extreme but I'd call this -9 LA. :smallyuk:
I'm no optimization expert, but aren't most tier 1 classes the spellcasting ones where losing just a couple levels means giving up a whole spell level, with all the power and versatility that entails?


Also, I added a picture to the animated objects section. I hope it was worth the effort.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Belkar

I get to compare a creature to something other than a barbarian? Oh, frabjous day!
It doesn’t seem fair to compare a belker to a pure beatstick; large size aside, its smoke form and natural bonus to Move Silently seem to push it more towards a sneakier, scouty role. Not to mention that its natural attacks are pitiful (they’d be good weapons for a Small warrior), but numerous; a full-attacking belker with a flanking ally and some sneak attack dice could easily make up for its lack of raw power.

Anyways, onto the comparison. A belker has a strictly superior combat chassis to a 5th-level rogue; half again as many hit points, five more points of AC, better attack bonuses, better saves, far better Dexterity. In fact, it compares favorably to a 5th-level barbarian (though falling behind in damage and—just barely—hit points). However, the rogue is going to have a far better time at actually roguing it up. Between size, skill points, and the belker’s Intelligence penalty, a rogue is simply going to be better at rogue skills. The belker’s higher skill cap and better Dexterity would make it superior at some skills, but it can’t choose as many. Not to mention that it’s lost out on five levels of rogue abilities—3d6 sneak attack, evasion, uncanny dodge, and a couple other useful perks. On the other hand, turning into smoke for a couple of minutes per day is pretty handy at sneaking into places; it’s just a shame that it’s so limited.
Still, with its special powers, while a belker isn’t as as good of a rogue as a 5th-level rogue or as good a fighter as a 5th-level barbarian, it’s at least competent enough at significant aspects of both. Its numerous (if weak) natural attacks also give it potential. I could see an argument for -1 or -2, but given how past entries have gone, I’ll go with -2.

[Daedroth]

Wow. Abyssal greater basilisk -- now that is a horrible build. Large size without reach, no DR or SR worth squat, uninspiring stat bonuses, a junk skill list with -7 Intelligence, 20' speed, a single natural attack (and no limbs for wielding typical weapons) ...

An 11th-level barbarian or rogue could put this to shame when optimized to an equal degree, which would indicate at least LA -7. But I wouldn't consider it playable in an 18th-level group with just seven gestalt levels, not even gestalted with a tier 1 class. I don't want to be extreme but I'd call this -9 LA. :smallyuk:

EDIT: Whoops, hold it, missed the upgraded save DC for the gaze attack. Okay, maybe -7 LA. Still nothing I'd want to try to play, myself.

You know that this thread is not "Partial Gestalt negative LA" right? This thread is about ECL<HD. The way negative LA work in this thread is literal negative LA, no gestalt.

For actual partial gestalt, visit this thread: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?533497-The-LA-Assignment-Thread-Gestalt-Negative-Retake&p=22295258#post22295258 :smallwink:

[GreatWyrmGold]

Oh, neat, you went back to that.
Anyways, onto the level adjusting. It's an easy one tonight.


Bugbear

With so few hit dice, there are only a couple of options—-1 or -2. Is the bugbear stronger than a level one barbarian? Yes. Therefore, its level adjustment is -1. Alright, let me go work on my buffer.

Note: Between writing this and posting it, I reached displacer beasts. Next are the dragons...oh dear...

[lord_khaine]

Not really much to comment on with all these simple ones. but yes, dragons are going to be interesting.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Chaos Beast

Well, this is gonna be fun.
Compare the chaos beast to a third-barbarian. The beast has half again as many hit points and almost the same AC, higher attack bonuses with almost no damage, and much better saves. If it wasn’t for the chaos beast’s lack of damage output and inability to use basically any kind of gear, it would be a clearly-superior pure brawler. But it can’t do much with its durability, or even its accuracy.

Aside from, of course, its defining feature—corporeal instability. Anyone who suffers from it will inevitably turn into a raving chaos beast, barring powerful restorative magic, but the process can be slowed dramatically by a (non-scaling) Charisma check; if your enemy has any Charisma at all, it will probably take far longer for said enemy to turn than it would to simply kill it. And if you get lucky to face an enemy with low enough mental stats to be weak...who says that beings of pure chaos are going to get along? Out of the frying pan, into the ftagn.
So corporeal instability is just a debuff. But it’s one hell of a debuff—speed reduction, no spellcasting, 50% miss chance and -4 attack penalty and random targeting, making equipment worthless, -4 Dexterity for non-nude humanoid opponents...they’re out of the fight until they make that Charisma check or turn into chaos beasts. The Wisdom debuff is welcome, too, especially if your party members have some Will-targeting effects. The problem is, of course, the low DC...but for low-level enemies, this isn’t a problem, especially if you can spend some resources to buff it.
This leaves the chaos beast as a serious one-trick pony. It can inflict a crippling debuff on enemies who they hit...and who fail a save, and who don’t succeed on a further Charisma check (with a static DC) that they get to make once per round, and it doesn’t look like hitting them once they’ve made that check forces them to make a save against getting debuffed again.

And how can the chaos beast advance? Well, it has above-average physical ability scores and perfectly average mental ones. It might make an okay brawler (or at least meatshield) if it could wield weapons, but since those who fall victim to the earlier stages of chaos-beast-ification can’t hold anything, that’s one heck of an argument to make. Anything equipment-focused is going to be impossible, and nothing the chaos beast offers is worth losing even a couple spellcasting levels. I guess you could make a terrifying monk, with each unarmed strike carrying a horrible curse, if you weren’t a literal embodiment of chaos.
Poor chaos beast. I’m inclined to go somewhere between -5 and -6, for sheer tankiness and the insane debuff, but there needs to be nine hells of an asterisk on there. I mean, there’s a chance that any mook you fight is going to turn into a CR 7 monster; chaos beasts are probably not going to be popular party members in any party which can’t handle those with ease.

Isn't this kinda weird? I mean, I guess I get the idea—the embodiment of chaos doesn't have a set form—but this goes a step beyond that into nightmarish madness.

[GreatWyrmGold]

I didn't completely forget about this thread, I only mostly forgot about it.

Before we start, a quick question. Chuuls are described as a mixture of insect, crustacean, and serpent. So what...okay, several questions. What about the chuul is serpentine? What does it have that insects do and crustaceans don’t, requiring their separate mention? (Is it their feet?) And what the frig kind of insect, crustacean, or serpent has paralytic mouth-tentacles? Geez, Gygax, it’s not the 60’s anymore, lay off the drugs.

Anyways. Compared to a chuul, a 9th-level barbarian has slightly fewer hit points, mostly-inferior saves, and—shockingly!—a lower AC! While attack bonuses will be comparable, the chuul gets two attacks at maximum value, and unless the barbarian has one heck of a magic sword, the chuul’s claws are going to deal comparable damage. The situation gets worse if the chuul breaks out the grappling rules; a strong constrict, automatic nibble damage, and possible paralysis are pretty fearsome. Oh, and it can swim. It’s hard to argue that chuuls aren’t better than 9th level brawlers.
I’m going to go with -1, but this seems like one of those monsters that might be able to earn a +0 if it was (ab)used right.

It's weird how this contrasts with Inevitability's review. I keep wondering if one of us was reading one of the rulebooks wrong.

[GreatWyrmGold]

I can't tell if nobody's commenting because everybody agrees with my assessments or because nobody cares about my assessments.
Anyways, on with the thread?


Delver

If you thought chuuls were weird, get a load of delvers. They’re elephant-sized slugs with six-clawed flippers, and they exude corrosive slime, eat rock, and get high by eating coins. Just...what?

Let’s start by analyzing its defenses. Its AC and hit points are almost equal to a sixteenth-level barbarian’s, and its saves are comparable or superior. Solid start—I wonder why Inevitability gave this a -0. Sure, the inability to use gear is bad, but it should be fine for at least a while. Then I consider its offense. Its attack bonuses are comparable to a 13th-level barbarian, and the physical damage it does by flailing about with its flippers is comparable to a low-level half-orc brawler with a greatsword. Pretty pathetic, especially for a Huge creature. Luckily, it does acid damage as well, but against organic foes that’s going to make the flipper damage comparable to two low-level greatsword attacks, and a 16th-level barbarian can make two high-level ones with attack bonuses exceeding the delver’s. But at least it’s big enough that its sheer bulk might make it an effective wall against anything without Tumble or better maneuverability...than a typical human who can’t get within five feet of anything solid...
Its defense is good, but its offense sucks. What about its special powers? The big ones are probably its burrowing and tremorsense, but the burrowing is so slow that it’s practically useless in combat. (It’s a whole turn just to completely emerge from the ground.) It’s a bit better for party transport, since it leaves a tunnel behind it, but what cleric or wizard is going to slowly walk through a slimy tunnel at a level when they have the power to send the giant slug to the Elemental Plane of Salt before teleporting home for a shower? It can also shape stone...25 cubic feet of it at a time, several times per hour. And it’s immune to acid, one of the rarer energy types. Also, it can destroy armor, clothing, and weapons, but by the midlevels a lot of that is treasure, so...can I turn that off? No? Better start looking into ways to spam make whole, then.
Speaking of which, how is this thing going to advance? Virtually nothing synergizes with its few strengths, and its huge mountain of HD is going to act as a serious hindrance to any class abilities it tries to learn from scratch. And how about gear? Even if you can find gear that would fit it, you would need to somehow protect the gear from acid constantly seeping from the delver’s body.

In short, the delver has an excellent defense and some outdated situational special abilities, but its offense is poor, it destroys treasure, and perhaps worst of all (both in the sense of making delvers lackluster and making them difficult to accurately rate), its advancement opportunities are lackluster to nonexistent. If it wasn’t for that last flaw, I might give it a mere -3 or -4 or something in that range. As is? Let’s say -7. That should leave the delver only a few initiator levels behind a normal-race version if you go with the gestalt option, which (combined with the inability to use gear) seems like a fair tradeoff for the delver’s remarkable defenses. (Maybe throw in a Vow of Poverty, too.)

[GreatWyrmGold]

Derro
Fun fact: The derro were inspired by the writings of Richard Shaver, who claimed that the letters of the (English) alphabet corresponded to 26 concepts (related to English words and word fragments) which formed Mantong, the Earth’s oldest language (despite being, you know, only 26 words long), and also that this somehow proved Atlantis. And that’s just the start of the crazy.
So what kind of monster was inspired by this madman? A race of albino human/dwarf mongrels with some creepy magic and some natural assassin abilities. A monster inspired by the ravings of a literal madman is less crazy than some of Gygax’s original creations. The jokes write themselves.

Anyways, I get to leave page 113 once more and look at how the derro compares to a rogue. A 3rd-level rogue has essentially the same combat statistics, though the derro’s natural armor and Dexterity bump up its AC. Derros also have notably superior Will saves. However, the big differences are in the special abilities.
A rogue has evasion, trapfinding, trap sense, and an extra die of sneak attack, not to mention more skill points and a better skill list. A derro has racial stealth bonuses, a couple of weak (but potentially useful) spell-like abilities, spell resistance strong enough to matter at low levels but which doesn’t (by RAW) increase as they level, and vulnerability to sunlight. Inevitability argued that the derro’s set of special abilities is weaker than what a normal character would get, and I’m inclined to agree.
With all this in mind, the derro is a bit weaker than a standard character, but not horribly so. -1


(Should I bother to keep working on the art for this thread? I have a few ideas I could implement, but I'm not going to bother if nobody reads this.)

[Daedroth]

In short, the delver has an excellent defense and some outdated situational special abilities, but its offense is poor, it destroys treasure, and perhaps worst of all (both in the sense of making delvers lackluster and making them difficult to accurately rate), its advancement opportunities are lackluster to nonexistent. If it wasn’t for that last flaw, I might give it a mere -3 or -4 or something in that range. As is? Let’s say -7. That should leave the delver only a few initiator levels behind a normal-race version if you go with the gestalt option, which (combined with the inability to use gear) seems like a fair tradeoff for the delver’s remarkable defenses. (Maybe throw in a Vow of Poverty, too.)

Now i'm confused, wich option are you doing? Because both are very different XD

[GreatWyrmGold]

Now i'm confused, wich option are you doing? Because both are very different XD
Mostly the non-gestalt option, since it's simpler, with the gestalt option brought in at times to compare. The numbers should be broadly similar, which can be useful when I could see arguments for wildly-different LAs. Of course, this is one of those monsters that I've had lying around for a while, so who knows what I thought when writing it.

(I'm kinda disappointed that that's the only thing that's gotten a comment in the past four assignments. Including the one where I asked why nobody was commenting anymore.)

[Lans]

-7 seems a little much for the delver, it leaves it basically as a full initiator, with a strength boost.

Derro might be to good for -1, they have solid stat boosts, a point of base attack, and darkness at will is pretty decent at low levels, and makes its sunlight vulnerability a non issue.

[Daedroth]

The numbers should be broadly similar, which can be useful when I could see arguments for wildly-different LAs.

They are not, at low negatives can be the case, but as you keep increasing the negative LA things get pretty diferent, the nongestalt option gives HD>ECL, so it generates problems, like this one:


As is? Let’s say -7.That should leave the delver only a few initiator levels behind a normal-race version if you go with the gestalt option, which (combined with the inability to use gear) seems like a fair tradeoff for the delver’s remarkable defenses. (Maybe throw in a Vow of Poverty, too.)

Thats not good, at ECL 15 with non-gestalt option you would have 7 IL from RHD (15 RHD/2) and 7 IL from warblade (For example), that would leave Delver only a level behin with Huge size, a lot of STR (+16), lot of HD (22) wich gives you a BAB of +18, +15 NA. With partial gestalt would work (IL 11, just 15 HD and BAB +13) but without it, is too much negative LA.

[lord_khaine]

(Should I bother to keep working on the art for this thread? I have a few ideas I could implement, but I'm not going to bother if nobody reads this.)

Hmm.. i do think art would help a bit. As well as looking a little closer at the layout in the presentation of each monster. That might help getting a little more attention for each monster. And give a slightly more informed view of each LA as well.


They are not, at low negatives can be the case, but as you keep increasing the negative LA things get pretty diferent, the nongestalt option gives HD>ECL, so it generates problems, like this one:

Its not a problem in itself though. Some things have a positive LA, meaning that they are stronger than their baseline HD number would indicate. That of course also means its possible to be weaker than your number of HD would indicate. And so you would need more HD to compensate for that.


hats not good, at ECL 15 with non-gestalt option you would have 7 IL from RHD (15 RHD/2) and 7 IL from warblade (For example), that would leave Delver only a level behin with Huge size, a lot of STR (+16), lot of HD (22) wich gives you a BAB of +18, +15 NA. With partial gestalt would work (IL 11, just 15 HD and BAB +13) but without it, is too much negative LA.

I dont think that in itself is a problem. The problem is more that the number of negative LA needs to be given on the correct basis. Obviously negative gestalt LA needs to be a bit higher than regular negative LA.

And else i agree with you on the Delver. -7 LA is a bit high, if it just gets even a single initiator level. Actually i think it is a good rule of thumb to considder how something would work with just a single PC level. In the Delvers case it would easily turn into a grappling/tripping beast.

[BrickTheToasted]

Mostly the non-gestalt option, since it's simpler, with the gestalt option brought in at times to compare. The numbers should be broadly similar, which can be useful when I could see arguments for wildly-different LAs. Of course, this is one of those monsters that I've had lying around for a while, so who knows what I thought when writing it.

(I'm kinda disappointed that that's the only thing that's gotten a comment in the past four assignments. Including the one where I asked why nobody was commenting anymore.)

Personally, the main reason I've been silent is because of Real Life™ getting in the way.

I have to say, though, I'm a bit concerned about the use of non-gestalt negative LA. It's true that it's a simpler approach, and that finding proper comparisons for a gestalt setup is time-consuming, but I have my doubts that simply reducing ECL, in the absence of other changes, will solve the issue at hand. The way I see it, a non-gestalt approach exacerbates the main problem with most of these monsters, rather than solving it, because the monster now has more hit dice than the rest of the party. Even discounting the early-qualification issues mentioned on the first page of the thread, that HD discrepancy further increases the gap in hit points, attack bonuses, etc, and balancing according to that standard tends to push the monster further down the path of "one-note bruiser with a severe lack of versatility" - which, in my opinion, is exactly what we're trying to escape from in the first place.

Remember, almost every monster on this list got a -0 from Inevitability for more or less the same reason - too many RHD, not enough class features. As such, I'd prefer to give them class features without extra hit dice, rather than extra hit dice without class features.

Overall, I feel like the gestalt setup is more likely to succeed in addressing the goal of this thread, and would therefore much rather see it used, even if it means entries have to come at a slower pace. I'm grateful for this thread's existence and don't want to discourage you, so if you're firmly dedicated to your current method, by all means, please continue with it. But I just wanted pitch in my $0.02 as a word of caution. I'll try to offer what support and feedback I can once Real Life™ stops being a pain, but in the meantime, thank you for your hard work.

[lord_khaine]

It is of course a good point that just using negative LA as it is leads a lot of these monsters to remain boring. But it would make things absurdly harder to balance. And it would mean everything done so far kinda needs to be rebalanced.

[GreatWyrmGold]

So, apparently what I need to do to get people to reply is drift away from the forum for a few days.


-7 seems a little much for the delver, it leaves it basically as a full initiator, with a strength boost.
Alright. It's been a while since I did this one, so let me look this up...
checks MM
checks prior post
Wow, yeah. Looking at it with a "duh, why didn't I do it this way the first time" type of method, that's way off. I stand that if my math did leave me with an initiator just a few levels behind a standard one, it would be fine. So let's adjust the LA so that it would be a few initiator levels behind with one level...say, -4.


Derro might be to good for -1, they have solid stat boosts, a point of base attack, and darkness at will is pretty decent at low levels, and makes its sunlight vulnerability a non issue.
A 3rd-level rogue has a point of base attack, so I'm not sure what your point there is. Darkness blinds the derro; they don't have blindsense, see in darkness, or even basic darkvision (which puts them into a very unusual 10% or so of the Monster Manual). But on second look...trapfinding, sneak attack, skills, and evasion versus the SLAs, SR, NA, and stats of a derro isn't really one-sided. I guess part of why I put derro as -1 was that Inevitability put them at -0. "They're not weak enough for -2, so they're -1, let's get on with the buffer."



Hmm.. i do think art would help a bit. As well as looking a little closer at the layout in the presentation of each monster. That might help getting a little more attention for each monster. And give a slightly more informed view of each LA as well.
Mind if I ask what you mean by the stuff after the first sentence?



Non-Gestalt Methodology
I know that would be better. But it would also require a lot more work, building characters and trying to figure out how to optimize them and such. I might try scrapping this entirely, but...well...I'm not sure that many people are interested. Which is part of why I haven't been updating regularly, and why I haven't been drawing anything even though I've had ideas I've enjoyed for a couple of these critters. I don't know if anyone cares, and I'm not sure if putting in more work would make more people care. I might be willing to put more time into this if I was enjoying it, but...eh. It's dull. Minmaxing isn't something I'm good at or that I enjoy, and this project requires skills and activities which are similar or identical to those of minmaxing.
So that's basically where this stands. I'm not enjoying this. You aren't enjoying this, maybe I should just post my buffer and be done with it.
You know what, let's do that.




Destruchan
We’re back to the wacky world of Gygax originals, with a cross between a dinosaur and a graboid that shouts really, really loudly. Oh, and they’re psychological sadists who might literally eat sadness.

Anyways, these critters have nearly-identical combat statistics to the given 6th-level barbarian, if that barbarian is dual-wielding shortswords...erm...and somehow isn’t taking two-weapon fighting penalties? In any case, it’s going to once more be a contest of special abilities.
The barbarian has trap sense, fast movement, improved uncanny dodge, and rage. The destruchan has hundred-foot blindsense, a couple of at-will AoE attacks, and the ability to shatter objects (with only hit points, not hardness, coming into play). Also, the destruchan is blind, meaning it can’t read...but neither can the barbarian. It’s also Large but reachless; on one hand, this causes a number of incidental penalties (from squeezing to gear cost), but on the other hand you can carry more and potentially let other party members act as a back-mounted turret.
Overall, the destruchan’s useful abilities probably outweigh the barbarian’s. Rage has more general combat utility than breaking objects, but breaking objects has much more noncombat utility and general abusability. Aside from size, the destruchan’s other abilities are more useful than the remaining barbarian abilities, probably enough to negate the size disadvantage and then some. However, no class in existence synergizes with the destruchan’s strengths. With all of this in consideration, I tentatively give the destruchan -2 LA.

Digester
Wrapping up this segment on silly monsters you’ll go back to forgetting once we’re done, we have...a creature with a head like a cross between a chuul and a lamprey, the torso of a small dinosaur, and the legs of a much scrawnier dinosaur. It also shoots acid out of its forehead. This abomination is a magical beast, while the blind carnosaur with a magical roar was an aberration. Go figure.

Basic combat statistics resemble a 7th-level barbarian. This time, though, against the slew of special abilities barbarians get, the digester gets...acid spray. Its cone version is roughly comparable to a 5th-level burning hands, while its single-target version is a bit stronger but—strangely—melee-range. Either way, it only comes up every 1d4 rounds. It’s a bit better if you can convince the DM to let you apply metabreath feats, but there are better ways to get those. And, as with several previous monsters, what the frig are you going to do with this monster when you level up?
-3 LA sounds fair. Though it’s hard to say—that whole “you have to start over with some new skillset” thing is hard to judge.

Big Nasty Animals
These are all just bags of hit points with teeth. What is there to do other than finding roughly-equivalent barbarians, and then knock off 1-3 levels for lacking special abilities and opposable thumbs? Let’s knock them all out at once.
But first, let me explain what I mean by “roughly equivalent”. I’m looking for barbarians which have HP, AC, and attacks loosely comparable to those of the BNA in question. Generally speaking, there will be three; I then try to find a decent average between them where no statistic is wildly out of place with the BNA’s. This is

Elasmosaurus: -4
Megaraptor: With four natural attacks, this gets a full -2
Triceratops: -4
Tyrannosaur: -6
Dire Bat: Flight is nice. -1
Dire Bear: -5
Dire Boar: -3
Dire Shark: -8
Dire Tiger: -4
Dire Wolf: -3

Please, continue to critique even such rudimentary entries. I don’t care enough to more than eyeball so many nigh-identical monsters, but someone might, and I’d like to hear their opinion.

Displacer Beast Pack Lord
A massive HP pool countered by low AC, combined with a few accurate natural attacks, mean that this weird cat would likely be a somewhat competitive beatstick at higher levels (though probably not as high as its HD) even without its special abilities. With them, its tankiness is improved against most everything except area-of-effect effects. It’s Huge, and while its bite (and mouthpick) has “only” 10-ft reach, its tentacles go 20. It’s not great, but it’s far from terrible. -3 sounds good to me.
Next time, on a sorta-special episode of Inevitably Rejected, GreatWyrmGold begins assigning level adjustments to his own kind. Boy, what an ordeal that will be…

Black Dragon, Wyrmling-Adult
Alright, here’s how this is going to go. I’m going to start by describing how useful I find the special abilities of each dragon (up to the maximum pre-epic level) and then the combat abilities of each age category. Sound good? Good.

Special Abilities
Its breath weapon is a line of acid. Lines are, in many cases, only useful for hitting one or two targets at a time; their AoE nature is almost as likely to be an unexpected hindrance as something you can plan with. That said, acid is a reasonably-rare energy type for complete immunity (though a shockingly common resistance), so it won’t ever be useless.
Black dragons are awesome swimmers, between speed and water-breathing. Actually, they’re pretty fast overall, even without taking to the air; black dragons can outrun a heavy horse, and once they grow up their endurance should be better than a light horse’s. And then there’s flight. A large enough black dragon could almost trivialize travel for an entire party, though for typical parties this probably won’t be until the dragon is a mature adult, and that’s epic-level crap. (I suspect this speed will be a bit of a theme for dragons.)
Darkness isn’t a completely terrible SLA, especially when its area is several times larger than the standard area. It’s use-impaired, but not useless.
Corrupt water might be neat as a lair-renovating trick and a sign that there’s a nasty dragon somewhere if you assume “10 cubic feet” was supposed to be “a 10-foot cube,” but it’s basically useless to an adventurer. Especially if you take it as written and assume that it can only convert 75 gallons—more than enough for a nasty prank (“I turned your wine into nasty water! Ahaha!” “Dammit, where’s Jesus when you need Him?”), but not enough for any practical purpose.
Aside from some typical latesauce dragon abilities, that’s about it.

Wyrmling
Using the same comparative processes I honed while reviewing big nasty animals, I put the wyrmling black dragon’s “core combat stats” (HP, AC, attacks) are roughly equivalent to the standard 3rd, 1st, and 2nd-level barbarian. (Attacks were tricky, since the dragon has three attacks with a higher attack bonus but pitiful damage. Multiple attacks are probably better this early on, especially if the little guy decides to go rogue or something. Besides, I had to round up for AC.) Thus, it’s roughly equivalent to a 2nd-level barbarian, combat-stat-wise. This is basically the process I went through for BNAs, and which I will be using for all future dragons without such commentary.
Anyways, onto other abilities. The dragon is faster, even on the ground, than a fast-moving barbarian, can fly to move even faster and, you know, fly, has a few neat immunities (from charm person to paralysis) and stronger saves than a second-level one (even Fortitude, barely), and practically ignores water. The acid breath is cool and all, but it’s little better than a warlock’s eldritch blast in most situations and can’t be used as often. To counter this, the barbarian has...rage, uncanny dodge, and opposable thumbs. I mean, it’s not like any of those are bad (some of my best friends have opposable thumbs), but they’re not much compared to the dragon’s array of special powers.
Tiny size is both a gift and a curse. The wyrmling can make its way into even more inconvenient spaces than human children do, and it helps with the AC and attack bonuses (mentioned above), but it also eliminates reach (except for bites), makes it even harder to find equipment, and doors...forget it. Overall, though, I’d count it as a positive for the little guy, especially because it gets to curl up on its adventuring-mommy’s shoulder.
-1, though again I could see an argument for +0.

Very Young
A very young (but not wyrmling) black dragon is roughly equivalent to a 4th- or 5th-level barbarian, as far as combat stats go. It also has all the special abilities of a wyrmling black dragon, and being Small gives its claws reach and makes its attacks comparable to standard Medium light weapons. Not bad. It’s earned a -2.

Young
A young black dragon is roughly equivalent to a 7th-level barbarian. Its wings are now powerful enough to be used as weapons, giving it five natural attacks, and its breath weapon is dealing more damage than either a typical attack or a typical eldritch blast at this level. Of course, the barbarian has been picking up tricks as well, like iterative attacks and damage reduction. I could see arguments for -1 and -2, but I’ll go with the latter. (You know, in case the bolding didn’t spoil it.)

Juvenile
A juvenile black dragon is roughly equivalent to an 11th-level barbarian, and has picked up draconic extra-large darkness. (Come to think of it, that should be a spell.) Of course, the barbarian has some new tricks, too—like greater raage. -2 should do it.
I swear, I’m not trying to make this easy to archive!

Young Adult

Adult

[lord_khaine]

So that's basically where this stands. I'm not enjoying this. You aren't enjoying this, maybe I should just post my buffer and be done with it.
You know what, let's do that.

Oh alright, its a shame, because i think the idea of the project were interesting enough, in a mainly academic fashion. But if you dont get any enjoyment from it then i understand the desire to just making it end.

[VisitingDaGulag]

You are making the LA (more than) free whilst trusting the RHD. This is the opposite assuming I've seen before.

Do you consider this choice, compared to its opposite, arbitrary? Or do you have a good reason for trusting the RHD's counting toward ECL but not the LA?

[javcs]

You are making the LA (more than) free whilst trusting the RHD. This is the opposite assuming I've seen before.

Do you consider this choice, compared to its opposite, arbitrary? Or do you have a good reason for trusting the RHD's counting toward ECL but not the LA?

It's negative LA. That is, the creatures are weaker than a character of ECL=RHD.
Depending on how you define negative LA, you are either trying to determine at what ECL the creature is equal to and balanced as a character, if negative LA directly affects ECL and can result in ECL being lower than RHD, or you are trying to determine how many levels worth of class features would be needed to boost the creature such that it is equal to and balanced as a character of ECL=RHD, if you go the negative LA = levels of gestalt route.

A huge amount of mechanics are based, directly or indirectly, on hit die/levels.

[VisitingDaGulag]

I am aware of that. It doesn't answer my question though, and you aren't the OP.

[GreatWyrmGold]

You are making the LA (more than) free whilst trusting the RHD. This is the opposite assuming I've seen before.

Do you consider this choice, compared to its opposite, arbitrary? Or do you have a good reason for trusting the RHD's counting toward ECL but not the LA?
...I don't understand the question. I was trying to figure out the actual ECL of the monsters, and then subtracting RHD from that to find LA.

[Blue Jay]

I don't want to derail, but I would like to add another perspective on the methodology.

I advocate translating negative LA into HD reduction. I've heard the arguments that altering racial HD requires a bunch of inconvenient calculations (saves, BAB, SLA's, etc), and it's true; but I'm not sure the inconvenience is as great as it's being said. Also I feel like, once those calculations are done, the final product will cause much less confusion at the actual game table than either the "partial gestalt" product or the "ECL < RHD" product. It also avoids the early-Epic situation everyone seems to worry about with "ECL < RHD." Plus, building and evaluating a reduced-RHD character is not as complex an endeavor as building a "partial-gestalt" character, so this would be the easier way to go for the purposes of this thread.

Also, to disclose my personal biases, I pretty much always play gestalt games, and neither the "partial gestalt" nor the "ECL < RHD" options are really even usable with gestalt.

[Daedroth]

I don't want to derail, but I would like to add another perspective on the methodology.

I advocate translating negative LA into HD reduction. I've heard the arguments that altering racial HD requires a bunch of inconvenient calculations (saves, BAB, SLA's, etc), and it's true; but I'm not sure the inconvenience is as great as it's being said. Also I feel like, once those calculations are done, the final product will cause much less confusion at the actual game table than either the "partial gestalt" product or the "ECL < RHD" product. It also avoids the early-Epic situation everyone seems to worry about with "ECL < RHD." Plus, building and evaluating a reduced-RHD character is not as complex an endeavor as building a "partial-gestalt" character, so this would be the easier way to go for the purposes of this thread.

Also, to disclose my personal biases, I pretty much always play gestalt games, and neither the "partial gestalt" nor the "ECL < RHD" options are really even usable with gestalt.

Its an interesting scope.
You are more than welcome to do it, like i did and i'm doing and GreatGoldWyrm has been doing.

[VisitingDaGulag]

You are making the LA (more than) free whilst trusting the RHD. This is the opposite assuming I've seen before.

Do you consider this choice, compared to its opposite, arbitrary? Or do you have a good reason for trusting the RHD's counting toward ECL but not the LA?

...I don't understand the question. I was trying to figure out the actual ECL of the monsters, and then subtracting RHD from that to find LA.

There are three variables ECL, LA, and RHD. ECL formula relating the other two. There are then three ways to look at this:

1) The ECL function is wrong and needs overwritten
2) The RHD value is wrong and needs overwritten
3) The LA value is wrong and needs overwritten

You chose option 3). You trust both the ECL formula and the RHD. My question is why did you chose 3) rather than 1) or 2)?

[javcs]

I don't want to derail, but I would like to add another perspective on the methodology.

I advocate translating negative LA into HD reduction. I've heard the arguments that altering racial HD requires a bunch of inconvenient calculations (saves, BAB, SLA's, etc), and it's true; but I'm not sure the inconvenience is as great as it's being said. Also I feel like, once those calculations are done, the final product will cause much less confusion at the actual game table than either the "partial gestalt" product or the "ECL < RHD" product. It also avoids the early-Epic situation everyone seems to worry about with "ECL < RHD." Plus, building and evaluating a reduced-RHD character is not as complex an endeavor as building a "partial-gestalt" character, so this would be the easier way to go for the purposes of this thread.

Also, to disclose my personal biases, I pretty much always play gestalt games, and neither the "partial gestalt" nor the "ECL < RHD" options are really even usable with gestalt.
Partial gestalt should still work with normal gestalt. You'd just end up with partial tri-stalt.

HD reduction would affect all HD-dependent factors, including feats, skill points, BAB, HP, base save bonuses, HD-based save DCs, ability scores, possibly size changes, etc. That gets messy.
Also, it means that if a creature becomes a PC it winds up being weaker than an standard creature of its kind that is still an NPC. That makes no sense whatsoever.




There are three variables ECL, LA, and RHD. ECL formula relating the other two. There are then three ways to look at this:

1) The ECL function is wrong and needs overwritten
2) The RHD value is wrong and needs overwritten
3) The LA value is wrong and needs overwritten

You chose option 3). You trust both the ECL formula and the RHD. My question is why did you chose 3) rather than 1) or 2)?

...
Um ... Effective Character Level, by definition, is Total Hit Dice {meaning Class Levels + Racial Hit Dice} + (positive) Level Adjustment. I'm not seeing how/why it would or should be changeable. In addition, changing how ECL works or is calculated would affect creatures with positive LAs as well.

Racial Hit Dice is how many racial hit dice the creature has. Reassessing RHD is just plain messy, because it affects all kinds of other variables, and unless you do it for all such creatures of its kind, including NPCs, you run into contradictions where a typical example that's an NPC is stronger than a typical example that became a PC.

Level Adjustment, by definition, is a modifier to Total Hit Dice to determine the Effective Character Level. I'm not seeing why there's any lack of clarity in using Level Adjustment to calculate ECL, even when the number of Racial Hit Dice exceeds the ECL that would be reasonable based on the entity's abilities.

If a creature is weaker than a PC of ECL equal to the number of its RHD, it does not require a positive LA, and having a Positive LA and then changing the number of RHD or how the ECL formula works somehow just does make any sense.


Figuring out how to balance an ECL for a creature where RHD exceeds its abilities can be complicated, or how to get a creature with RHD exceeding its capabilities to balanced at RHD=ECL can be complicated - depending on how one wishes to make negative LA work, but I don't understand where you're trying to go with your question.

[Blue Jay]

Partial gestalt should still work with normal gestalt. You'd just end up with partial tri-stalt.

That's true. But that's not a simple calculation. There's a law of diminishing returns there: the more classes you gestalt, the less you get from each class. So, the advantage of tristalt over gestalt is less than the advantage of gestalt over non-gestalt. So if LA -2 translates into 2 gestalt levels, you may have to convert it into 3 tristalt levels for a gestalt game. That just adds another layer of evaluations and contingencies.

Reducing RHD makes the evaluation cleaner, because you don't end up with a complex final product or a contingent LA. And it unifies the system better, so 10 levels of (monster) is equivalent to 10 levels of (class), and you're not left with any conversion factors at all.


HD reduction would affect all HD-dependent factors, including feats, skill points, BAB, HP, base save bonuses, HD-based save DCs, ability scores, possibly size changes, etc. That gets messy.

I use a spreadsheet: I have the formulas already entered, so all I have to do is change the "HD" box from 5 to 3, and all the numbers are recalculated for me. There's still a lot of manual work involved in adding all the different special attacks and special qualities, but I'd be entering all that into the spreadsheet when I build the character anyway, so it's not like it's extra work for me.


Also, it means that if a creature becomes a PC it winds up being weaker than an standard creature of its kind that is still an NPC. That makes no sense whatsoever.

I don't feel like this is a very big deal, personally. Worst-case scenario is that you're playing an ettercap whose silk is slightly less sticky than the typical ettercap's silk, or your athach might face another athach that has more hit points than he does. I don't think that's too problematic. I mean, I can certainly see why it might seem a bit "unfair," but I don't think it's really a fatal flaw in the system. And, it's possible that your DM will use the rebuilt monster for his NPC's; or he might use house rules that nullify the differences (e.g., "once a class skill, always a class skill" or "save DC's scale with total HD instead of just racial HD"). Also, you'll effectively get to replace your lost racial levels with class levels, so you could very well end up stronger than a standard creature of your kind.

[Blue Jay]

There are three variables ECL, LA, and RHD. ECL formula relating the other two. There are then three ways to look at this:

1) The ECL function is wrong and needs overwritten
2) The RHD value is wrong and needs overwritten
3) The LA value is wrong and needs overwritten

You chose option 3). You trust both the ECL formula and the RHD. My question is why did you chose 3) rather than 1) or 2)?

First off, if you have to rephrase your question three times, you'd probably be better off doing something other than rephrasing. How about give an example of one of the alternative approaches someone might consider?

Second, the idea that RHD could be "wrong" doesn't make any sense: RHD is a core element of the monster's stats. All the math that defines the monster's abilities is based on RHD. On the other hand, LA is a simple number assigned arbitrarily based on human judgment. So, LA is more flexible, easier to alter, and less integral to the monster's identity.

So, if we're going to change anything, it makes the most sense to change the LA first, and to only consider changing the RHD when changing LA is not good enough to balance the monster. I advocate changing RHD for monsters with negative LA only because I like how it simplifies and unifies the ECL system. But, it does involve more homebrew and more work, so I don't expect that everyone will agree with me.

[javcs]

That's true. But that's not a simple calculation. There's a law of diminishing returns there: the more classes you gestalt, the less you get from each class. So, the advantage of tristalt over gestalt is less than the advantage of gestalt over non-gestalt. So if LA -2 translates into 2 gestalt levels, you may have to convert it into 3 tristalt levels for a gestalt game. That just adds another layer of evaluations and contingencies.

Reducing RHD makes the evaluation cleaner, because you don't end up with a complex final product or a contingent LA. And it unifies the system better, so 10 levels of (monster) is equivalent to 10 levels of (class), and you're not left with any conversion factors at all.

True, you do run into diminishing returns, but on the other hand, there's a similar effect on regular (positive) LA when it comes to gestalt games.
At any rate, using the partial gestalt approach in a gestalt game, the RHD+linked partial gestalts, are supposed to be equivalent to one side/track of the gestalt, not PC classes on both/two sides/tracks of gestalt.


Oh, I'd agree that a straight RHD=class levels system would have been a lot more straightforwards. Unfortunately, that's not the system we have to work with - and a lot of RHD are all kinds of terrible.




I use a spreadsheet: I have the formulas already entered, so all I have to do is change the "HD" box from 5 to 3, and all the numbers are recalculated for me. There's still a lot of manual work involved in adding all the different special attacks and special qualities, but I'd be entering all that into the spreadsheet when I build the character anyway, so it's not like it's extra work for me.

How do you deal with creatures that have spread skill points unevenly (and not max ranks) across multiple skills?
How do you deal with the change in the number of feats they should get?




I don't feel like this is a very big deal, personally. Worst-case scenario is that you're playing an ettercap whose silk is slightly less sticky than the typical ettercap's silk, or your athach might face another athach that has more hit points than he does. I don't think that's too problematic. I mean, I can certainly see why it might seem a bit "unfair," but I don't think it's really a fatal flaw in the system. And, it's possible that your DM will use the rebuilt monster for his NPC's; or he might use house rules that nullify the differences (e.g., "once a class skill, always a class skill" or "save DC's scale with total HD instead of just racial HD"). Also, you'll effectively get to replace your lost racial levels with class levels, so you could very well end up stronger than a standard creature of your kind.
My issue is that a "typical" creature that decides to become a PC should not suddenly get weaker than it was as an NPC. A "typical" creature of its kind that decides to become a PC should be as strong as or stronger than a "typical" creature of its kind that did not become a PC - always, not just after leveling up a bunch.

[GreatWyrmGold]

There are three variables ECL, LA, and RHD. ECL formula relating the other two. There are then three ways to look at this:

1) The ECL function is wrong and needs overwritten
2) The RHD value is wrong and needs overwritten
3) The LA value is wrong and needs overwritten

You chose option 3). You trust both the ECL formula and the RHD. My question is why did you chose 3) rather than 1) or 2)?
That...doesn't make sense. If one of those is wrong, then by definition, at least one of the others needs to be wrong. You can't adjust ECL without adjusting RHD or LA, and you can't adjust one of the latter two without adjusting ECL.



I use a spreadsheet.
You do realize that most people don't, right?



How do you deal with creatures that have spread skill points unevenly (and not max ranks) across multiple skills?
How do you deal with the change in the number of feats they should get?
Don't forget ability scores. The RAW say that natural ability modifiers already account for bonuses given every four HD, so what happens when you start removing HD?
All of this involves a lot of DM/homebrewer fiat, so it's simpler to just change the LA and be done with it.


My issue is that a "typical" creature that decides to become a PC should not suddenly get weaker than it was as an NPC. A "typical" creature of its kind that decides to become a PC should be as strong as or stronger than a "typical" creature of its kind that did not become a PC - always, not just after leveling up a bunch.
I mean, there's precedent (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RedemptionDemotion), but it's kinda silly if that's standard. (It's kinda silly in general, but it's sillier when generalized.)

[Daedroth]

Partial gestalt and RHD removal are almost equivalent, especially if the class has good chasis already (Warblade, for example, and most of time will be, as a critter with RHD won't be a Wizard most of the time) and should give similar results.


Example in Bugbear Warblade, both with -1:
They are both exactly the same (2d8+1d12 on HD's, same BAB, same abilities, ... the only difference is a slightly better Ref save of the partial gestalt). Why? Because the only difference between gestalt and changing one HD for another its that in the first case the chassis is slightly improved.

[VisitingDaGulag]

Um ... Effective Character Level, by definition, is Total Hit Dice {meaning Class Levels + Racial Hit Dice} + (positive) Level Adjustment. I'm not seeing how/why it would or should be changeable.I could answer you the same way you have answered me: "Um ... a Bugbear's LA, by definition, is 1 (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/bugbear.htm). I'm not seeing how/why it would or should be changeable." But that's the point of the thread. Reevaluating the numbers when playing monsters.

In addition, changing how ECL works or is calculated would affect creatures with positive LAs as well.RAW, there are no creatures with negative LA. The point is what might be adjusted instead.

Racial Hit Dice is...I know what RHD is.

Reassessing RHD is just plain messyI agree with you that changing monster stat blocks is not fun. For a PC, though, this process is as messy as gaining a level.

Level Adjustment, by definition, isI know what LA is. Again, a bugbear's LA is 1.

to determine the Effective Character LevelI know what ECL is. Is this thread about changing LA, and therefore possible they related value of ECL, or not?

If a creature is weaker than a PC of ECL equal to the number of its RHD, it does not require a positive LAIf a creature is weaker than a PC of its, it might not require a negative LA. It might require a different ECL function. At this point, this is getting elementary. If you would like me to respond further, please tell me that you have taken high school Algebra II.



First off, if you have to rephrase your question three times, you'd probably be better off doing something other than rephrasing.First off, I only rephrased the question once. I did so after providing generalized examples.

Second, the idea that RHD could be "wrong" doesn't make any senseSecondly, the idea that LA is 'wrong' doesn't make sense. LA is a core element of a PC character's stats.

All the math that defines the monster's abilities is based on RHDThis is untrue. There are many monster abilities unrelated to RHD.

So, if we're going to change anything, it makes the most sense to change the LA firstYour conclusion is flawed because your assumption above is flawed. You can try again, but you have not even addressed the third possibility. :smallsigh:



That...doesn't make sense. If one of those is wrong, then by definition, at least one of the others needs to be wrong. You can't adjust ECL without adjusting RHD or LA, and you can't adjust one of the latter two without adjusting ECL.The idea that you have the freedom to change values but not functions ... doesn't make sense.

You are saying ECL cannot be made to be any other function, and yet you are comfortable changing LA. Why is ECL the most holy RAW to you and yet LA isn't? That is the whole question. You are choosing to change many LA values instead of many RHD values or the ECL single formula. This choice seems arbitrary at best.

After all, by definition, a bugbear's LA is 1 (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/bugbear.htm) not -1. If you homebrew the LA, then you have the freedom to change anything else that is similar, including RHD values or the ECL formula.

[javcs]

I could answer you the same way you have answered me: "Um ... a Bugbear's LA, by definition, is 1 (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/bugbear.htm). I'm not seeing how/why it would or should be changeable." But that's the point of the thread. Reevaluating the numbers when playing monsters.

RAW, there are no creatures with negative LA. The point is what might be adjusted instead.

I know what RHD is.


Reassessing RHD is just plain messyI agree with you that changing monster stat blocks is not fun. For a PC, though, this process is as messy as gaining a level.

I know what LA is. Again, a bugbear's LA is 1.

I know what ECL is. Is this thread about changing LA, and therefore possible they related value of ECL, or not?

If a creature is weaker than a PC of its, it might not require a negative LA. It might require a different ECL function. At this point, this is getting elementary. If you would like me to respond further, please tell me that you have taken high school Algebra II.

First off, I only rephrased the question once: "My question is why did you chose [to overwrite LA) rather than (overwrite HD) or (reevaluate the ECL function)?"

Secondly, the idea that LA is 'wrong' doesn't make sense. LA is a core element of a PC character's stats.

This is untrue. There are many monster abilities unrelated to RHD.

Your conclusion is flawed because your assumption above is flawed. You have also not addressed the third possibility. :smallsigh:

The idea that you have the freedom to change values but not functions ... doesn't make sense.

You are saying ECL cannot be equal to any other function, and yet you are comfortable changing LA. Why is ECL the most holy RAW to you and yet LA isn't? That is the whole question. Why are you chose option 3? Why are you not choosing to change the RHD value and why are you not the ECL formula?

After all, by definition, a bugbear's LA is 1 (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/bugbear.htm) not -1.

...

Hypothetically, how would you suggest changing the ECL calculation without altering LA? Or adding some new variable that does basically the exact same thing as LA with a different name?

--

The end result of the ECL equation is wrong. Because the assessed LA is wrong. Not because the equation itself is inherently flawed.
Changing the RHD value would require way more effort for minimal actual benefit. And would have extensive follow-on collateral changes and side effects.
LA - Level Adjustment is the mechanic that already exists to do what we're trying to do. The problem is, WotC overvalued certain traits, and undervalued others, and far too many creatures suffer from inflated numbers of RHD in order to be beatsticks at their CR, and beatsticks aren't all that great anyways.

Oh, sure, there's room to debate around how negative level adjustments should work, but Level Adjustment is the mechanic that's literally for adjusting creatures ECL for being stronger (or weaker) than a character of Level equal to the number of their RHD.


LA is a part of PC stats, sure. But the LA assessed on a lot of creatures, is inaccurate, and many more creatures that don't have assessed LAs have inferior abilities for a PC of level equal to their number of RHD.

Hit Dice is a fundamental characteristic. It cannot be changed without changing almost every other aspect of a creature in some way, shape, or form.
Level Adjustment is a tertiary, stand-alone characteristic. It can be altered without changing anything else.

[Blue Jay]

True, you do run into diminishing returns, but on the other hand, there's a similar effect on regular (positive) LA when it comes to gestalt games.

Yeah, that's true. But, it gets worse when you mix gestalt and non-gestalt than when you just apply gestalt uniformly to everybody. You're better off avoiding situations where you have to consider multiple exchange ratios.


Oh, I'd agree that a straight RHD=class levels system would have been a lot more straightforwards. Unfortunately, that's not the system we have to work with - and a lot of RHD are all kinds of terrible.

But, if you use the reduced-RHD system, that's exactly what you get: you get a monster whose HD are the same as a PC with an equivalent power rating. And I don't think it's really any more difficult to reduce RHD than to gestalt some of them.


How do you deal with creatures that have spread skill points unevenly (and not max ranks) across multiple skills?
How do you deal with the change in the number of feats they should get?

I guess I generally don't deal with those things, because I'm just going to assign feats and skill points from scratch, anyway.

And again, how would partial gestalt make this any different? You'd be recalculating and rebuilding this stuff with a partial gestalt, too. If we assign LA -3, that means either "delete 3 levels" or "rebuild 3 levels" (depending on which system we're using), and in practice, those really aren't very different from each other.


My issue is that a "typical" creature that decides to become a PC should not suddenly get weaker than it was as an NPC. A "typical" creature of its kind that decides to become a PC should be as strong as or stronger than a "typical" creature of its kind that did not become a PC - always, not just after leveling up a bunch.

Okay, I see what you're saying. But, most PC's are not NPC's before they become PC's, so this is kind of a narrow-niche objection, isn't it?

And, it also assumes that your DM isn't going to use the same monster stats for his NPC's that he gave you for your PC, which seems like an odd world-building decision. If he's doing that, then this purist mindset you're espousing is probably not appropriate for that particular campaign, anyway.


You do realize that most people don't (use a spreadsheet), right?

Maybe they should consider it. I mean, if the math is the stumbling block, a spreadsheet is a pretty straightforward solution.


Don't forget ability scores. The RAW say that natural ability modifiers already account for bonuses given every four HD, so what happens when you start removing HD?

Maybe I'm just less intimidated by the math here, but this doesn't really seem like a big deal to me.


All of this involves a lot of DM/homebrewer fiat, so it's simpler to just change the LA and be done with it.

Yeah, it's simpler for the purposes of this thread, but I think the end-product is less usable than either the partial-gestalt or the reduced-RHD product would have been; so I think it's less desirable overall.

But, it's still functional, and your way is still perfectly reasonable, so I hope I haven't derailed you too far with my objections.

[GreatWyrmGold]

The idea that you have the freedom to change values but not functions ... doesn't make sense.

You are saying ECL cannot be made to be any other function, and yet you are comfortable changing LA. Why is ECL the most holy RAW to you and yet LA isn't? That is the whole question. You are choosing to change many LA values instead of many RHD values or the ECL single formula. This choice seems arbitrary at best.

After all, by definition, a bugbear's LA is 1 (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/bugbear.htm) not -1. If you homebrew the LA, then you have the freedom to change anything else that is similar, including RHD values or the ECL formula.
sigh
Changing the value of level adjustment is simple. Use the same rules, but a different value. Hardly anything has to change.
Changing the value of hit dice is complex. You would need to adjust all of a monster's statistics in ways that aren't always straightforward.
Changing how ECL works is ludicrous. It's impossible to create a simple formula that would take the printed HD and LA for every monster and spit out a value for ECL which is the value we think is appropriate for that monster. Not to mention that you'd be making LA almost meaningless.
It's simpler to just adjust the level adjustment—so much so that I don't understand why any other options are being seriously considered. (Of course, the question of what to do with a negative level adjustment is another thing entirely.)



Okay, I see what you're saying. But, most PC's are not NPC's before they become PC's, so this is kind of a narrow-niche objection, isn't it?
Actually, all PCs are NPCs before they become PCs. They only become PCs at the moment that the game actually starts. After all, a PC is defined by being controlled by a player, isn't it?
On a thematically-related point, the problem doesn't come from any one character's statistics changing over the course of their lifetime, but from the statistics of characters who should be similar...well...not being similar.


And, it also assumes that your DM isn't going to use the same monster stats for his NPC's that he gave you for your PC, which seems like an odd world-building decision.
Because changing the RHD of every monster in the book based on what would make them a balanced PC makes sense, somehow?


Maybe they should consider it. I mean, if the math is the stumbling block, a spreadsheet is a pretty straightforward solution.
I would think the most straightforward solution would be to not introduce extra math needlessly. After all, setting up a good, comprehensive spreadsheet is probably going to take longer than building a character simple enough to use it.

[javcs]

Yeah, that's true. But, it gets worse when you mix gestalt and non-gestalt than when you just apply gestalt uniformly to everybody. You're better off avoiding situations where you have to consider multiple exchange ratios.

Personally, I'd just ignore the diminishing returns, and leave the LA (positive or negative) the same as for a gestalt and non-gestalt base game.



But, if you use the reduced-RHD system, that's exactly what you get: you get a monster whose HD are the same as a PC with an equivalent power rating. And I don't think it's really any more difficult to reduce RHD than to gestalt some of them.

Then you need to rebuild every monster, including random monsters. That's a lot of work.
With Partial Gestalt, you only need to alter the ones that are PCs, or are special enough for class levels. Or decide that some of the NPCs not quite special enough to benefit from the partial gestalt of PCs.



I guess I generally don't deal with those things, because I'm just going to assign feats and skill points from scratch, anyway.

And again, how would partial gestalt make this any different? You'd be recalculating and rebuilding this stuff with a partial gestalt, too. If we assign LA -3, that means either "delete 3 levels" or "rebuild 3 levels" (depending on which system we're using), and in practice, those really aren't very different from each other.

Partial Gestalt is purely additive - you're not taking anything away. You're adding maybe a few skill points, a fractional point of BAB, a couple HP, a fractional point of base save bonus, and some class abilities, per level of partial gestalt.
And again, you only need to Partial Gestalt PCs, or special NPCs. You don't need to rewrite the entire monster manual.



Okay, I see what you're saying. But, most PC's are not NPC's before they become PC's, so this is kind of a narrow-niche objection, isn't it?

And, it also assumes that your DM isn't going to use the same monster stats for his NPC's that he gave you for your PC, which seems like an odd world-building decision. If he's doing that, then this purist mindset you're espousing is probably not appropriate for that particular campaign, anyway.

Say my PC monster has an identical twin who's an NPC. My character should not suddenly be inferior to my character's identical twin because my character decided to become a PC while the twin decided to remain an NPC and not advance.

Partial Gestalt (or just straight ECL reduction) means the DM doesn't need to rewrite the entire monster manual to avoid that issue.
Partial Gestalt (or just straight ECL reduction) means the only work the DM needs to do is altering special NPC creatures with PC class levels, and assigning/authorizing the negative LA for the players to use.





Maybe they should consider it. I mean, if the math is the stumbling block, a spreadsheet is a pretty straightforward solution.

Maybe I'm just less intimidated by the math here, but this doesn't really seem like a big deal to me.

Knocking off RHD means you need to rewrite the entire monster manual.
How do you decide which ability scores, skill points, and feats get removed?

Sure, redoing any one monster isn't that bad. However, you wouldn't be doing just one - you'd have to do a lot of them, and I expect that the vast majority of DMs would prefer to not rewrite the monster manual.




Yeah, it's simpler for the purposes of this thread, but I think the end-product is less usable than either the partial-gestalt or the reduced-RHD product would have been; so I think it's less desirable overall.

But, it's still functional, and your way is still perfectly reasonable, so I hope I haven't derailed you too far with my objections.

I'd rank straight negative ECL reduction as being more useable, and certainly more user-friendly, than reducing RHD.
I have a personal preference for partial-gestalt over straight negative ECL reduction, since RHD being in excess of ECL can complicate pre-reqs, and potentially allow early access. Also, there's the potential hazard of complicating BAB and base saves at higher levels - ie, a critter with sufficient RHD and negative LA could well end up with a BAB in excess of +20 before 20th, and base saves higher than the good save for its ECL.
However, I'd still go with straight ECL reduction before touching actually reducing RHD. It's not as ... elegant a solution as partial-gestalt, IMO, but straight ECL reduction mostly works alright, it's just there are potential issues around the margins and with early access.



Also, reducing RHD would get messy, since we'd need to rewrite a helluva lot of monsters.
Even worse, when we get to critters that aren't covered by the OGL, we'd probably run into serious legal issues. Assigning a new LA value, be it positive or negative, even with a discussion about what the creature is capable of, can be an open access community resource, without drawing legal attention the way outright rewriting creatures to account for RHD reduction would.

[Blue Jay]

First off, I only rephrased the question once. I did so after providing generalized examples.

Okay, "rephrase" was an unfair word, so I'm sorry for that. What I meant was, you've tried to ask your question twice now, so please take a different approach next time.

When I say "example," I mean pick a creature from the Monster Manual, and demonstrate for us how you would change its ECL without changing either its RHD or its LA, because none of us has any idea how you imagine this working.



All the math that defines the monster's abilities is based on RHD.
This is untrue. There are many monster abilities unrelated to RHD.

You misunderstood what I wrote there. I didn't say all the monster's abilities are based on RHD, I said all the math is based on RHD. The point was that changing RHD requires you to redo all that math, while changing LA doesn't. So, RHD is a core element of the monster, because it actually determines the monster's power and abilities: LA is not a core element, because it does not factor into any of the monster's abilities.


You are saying ECL cannot be made to be any other function, and yet you are comfortable changing LA. Why is ECL the most holy RAW to you and yet LA isn't? That is the whole question. You are choosing to change many LA values instead of many RHD values or the ECL single formula. This choice seems arbitrary at best.

Again, give an example of another function that we might consider using. Like Javcs, I don't see how there could be any other option: you've got racial HD, which work kind of like class levels, and then you've got some factor that you use to try to correct for variation in power level between RHD and class levels.

[Blue Jay]

Actually, all PCs are NPCs before they become PCs. They only become PCs at the moment that the game actually starts. After all, a PC is defined by being controlled by a player, isn't it?

Hmmm... I guess I just don't see it the same way as you. I mean, this sounds like you're saying that the character I built somehow existed before I built him, and that doesn't make any sense to me.


I would think the most straightforward solution would be to not introduce extra math needlessly. After all, setting up a good, comprehensive spreadsheet is probably going to take longer than building a character simple enough to use it.

Okay, I guess it's unfair of me to keep pushing the whole "spreadsheet" thing, so I'll stop. I mean, if you genuinely want me to provide spreadsheet solutions for you, I'm willing to do so; but if you don't want to use a spreadsheet, then I should just accept that and let it go.


Because changing the RHD of every monster in the book based on what would make them a balanced PC makes sense, somehow?

Um... yes. I have a spreadsheet, remember? :tongue:

Okay, in all seriousness, the reduced-RHD system can also be delivered in the form of a recommendation, rather than a full rebuild, if that's what you'd prefer to do. You don't have to do the work now, if you don't want to.

-----


Say my PC monster has an identical twin who's an NPC. My character should not suddenly be inferior to my character's identical twin because my character decided to become a PC while the twin decided to remain an NPC and not advance.

Is it really a fault of the system if you and/or your DM fail to use the same stats for characters that should have the same stats?

But, I think you're overestimating how much trouble it would actually be if NPC's and PC's of the same race did use different stats: in most games, this issue won't even come up, and in the vast majority of cases when it does come up, it won't really matter.

But, since we're talking about niche problems, here's one for the partial-gestalt system: if an athach is only "worth" ECL 10, it ought to be playable in a 10th-level game, but the partial-gestalt system doesn't allow that.


Partial Gestalt is purely additive - you're not taking anything away. You're adding maybe a few skill points, a fractional point of BAB, a couple HP, a fractional point of base save bonus, and some class abilities, per level of partial gestalt.

But, the math is the same, regardless of which way you do it. Here's an example: athach 14 HD, LA -4.

Assuming a partial-gestalt with 4 levels of barbarian, here's how you calculate your Fort save:


You'll get 10 HD with a poor Fort save (10 x 0.33 = 3.33), and 4 HD with a good Fort save (4 x 0.50 +2 = 4). So, 7.33 (assuming fractional saves).

Assuming reduced-RHD plus 4 levels of barbarian, here's how you calculate your Fort save:


You'll get 10 HD with a poor Fort save (10 x 0.33 = 3.33), and 4 HD with a good Fort save (4 x 0.50 +2 = 4). So, 7.33 (assuming fractional saves).

It's the same process for both systems. And it will basically be the same for every statistic you calculate. Partial-gestalt does not reduce the amount of math that has to be done.

The real difference, to me, seems to be that the partial-gestalt system doesn't require the math to be done up-front: all you have to do is give your player a build allowance, and then they do all the math. This is what I mean when I say the reduced-RHD system is more "usable" and more "user-friendly": it doesn't require the user to do all the math or make the tough decisions.

[javcs]

did[/I] use different stats: in most games, this issue won't even come up, and in the vast majority of cases when it does come up, it won't really matter.

But, since we're talking about niche problems, here's one for the partial-gestalt system: if an athach is only "worth" ECL 10, it ought to be playable in a 10th-level game, but the partial-gestalt system doesn't allow that.

The partial gestalt approach says "this creature is balanced at ECL=RHD with X levels gestalted alongside its RHD".
It does not say that "this creatures abilities are worth ECL Y, where Y is X levels below its number of RHD, and therefore should be playable in a game starting at ECL Y"; although the former may well be true; the latter is the negative LA being a straight ECL reduction.

If you want to play something that has an ECL higher than the game start, I smite you with the DM-Hammer of "that's not appropriate for this game's starting point" and of "don't be a wiseass"



But, the math is the same, regardless of which way you do it. Here's an example: athach 14 HD, LA -4.

Assuming a partial-gestalt with 4 levels of barbarian, here's how you calculate your Fort save:


You'll get 10 HD with a poor Fort save (10 x 0.33 = 3.33), and 4 HD with a good Fort save (4 x 0.50 +2 = 4). So, 7.33 (assuming fractional saves).

Assuming reduced-RHD plus 4 levels of barbarian, here's how you calculate your Fort save:


You'll get 10 HD with a poor Fort save (10 x 0.33 = 3.33), and 4 HD with a good Fort save (4 x 0.50 +2 = 4). So, 7.33 (assuming fractional saves).

It's the same process for both systems. And it will basically be the same for every statistic you calculate. Partial-gestalt does not reduce the amount of math that has to be done.

The real difference, to me, seems to be that the partial-gestalt system doesn't require the math to be done up-front: all you have to do is give your player a build allowance, and then they do all the math. This is what I mean when I say the reduced-RHD system is more "usable" and more "user-friendly": it doesn't require the user to do all the math or make the tough decisions.

How is reduced-RHD more user-friendly? It requires rewriting a lot of the monster manual, and altering the baseline monsters extensively.
Partial-gestalt is a purely bolt-on additive process. No rewriting of existing material is required (although it can be done for special/important NPCs with class levels). The only math required is for PCs (who'd be doing math no matter what they chose to play as), and special NPCs (who the DM's probably tweaking anyways).


Reduced RHD means I, as a DM, need to figure out what to take away from a standard monster, but do that for all monsters who merit negative LA. And I need to do that in advance.
Partial Gestalt lets me, as a DM, use pre-existing material without needing to change it for random encounters and/or generic entities. The important/special NPCs, I'd probably be tweaking anyways, but I can decide that most of them aren't special enough to benefit from the Partial-Gestalt rules the way PCs do, and for the ones that are benefiting, I am adding to them, not subtracting from their baseline.

Partial Gestalt throws the responsibility for doing the math for their character on the player, not the DM. Reduced RHD places the responsibility of doing the math for PCs on the DM, not the player.
IMO, the player should be responsible for doing the math involved in building their character, not the DM. Sure, a DM will probably doublecheck the sheets when the player is done ... but that's not the same as doing a major part of the player's job in building their character for them.


Reduced RHD might be easier on the players than partial Gestalt, especially if the DM has to do all the work involved in reducing RHD. That's not particularly user-friendly for the DM.

[Blue Jay]

The partial gestalt approach says "this creature is balanced at ECL=RHD with X levels gestalted alongside its RHD".
It does not say that "this creatures abilities are worth ECL Y, where Y is X levels below its number of RHD, and therefore should be playable in a game starting at ECL Y"; although the former may well be true; the latter is the negative LA being a straight ECL reduction.

If you want to play something that has an ECL higher than the game start, I smite you with the DM-Hammer of "that's not appropriate for this game's starting point" and of "don't be a wiseass"

Aside from the numbers not necessarily being what my example purported them to be, do you understand the principle behind the argument? Partial-gestalt does not offer a means of lowering a monster's ECL beyond a certain point, even when lowering it beyond that point is fully justifiable. This is something that a fair number of players will want or expect a negative-LA system to do. It's a legitimate shortcoming of the system. And frankly, it's much more realistic as a hypothetical objection than "what if my PC has an identical twin who's an NPC?"


How is reduced-RHD more user-friendly? It requires rewriting a lot of the monster manual, and altering the baseline monsters extensively.

Partial-gestalt is a purely bolt-on additive process. No rewriting of existing material is required (although it can be done for special/important NPCs with class levels). The only math required is for PCs (who'd be doing math no matter what they chose to play as), and special NPCs (who the DM's probably tweaking anyways).

Okay, we're just talking past each other. My impression is that the overall workload is reduced if somebody rebuilds things upfront, in a thread like this, and then neither the DM nor the player has to do any extraneous math, and we can deliver a simple product that uses a single, unified ruleset. Your counterargument is that the upfront work requires a lot of messy decision-making that's completely unnecessary, and it ultimately won't really reduce the downstream workload.

On the other hand, your impression is that the overall workload is reduced if we just develop a recommended design mandate that DM's can pass on to their players, and then it only has to be used when we want to use it, and we don't have to change anything if we don't want to. My counterargument is that the product is less convenient for the downstream users to work with, it cobbles together different variant rulesets, and doesn't change things that should be changed.

I don't really believe that this discussion is going to progress much further than this, because it's pretty clear that we're just looking at the project from different perspectives, and ultimately just talking past each other.

[javcs]

Aside from the numbers not necessarily being what my example purported them to be, do you understand the principle behind the argument? Partial-gestalt does not offer a means of lowering a monster's ECL beyond a certain point, even when lowering it beyond that point is fully justifiable. This is something that a fair number of players will want or expect a negative-LA system to do. It's a legitimate shortcoming of the system. And frankly, it's much more realistic as a hypothetical objection than "what if my PC has an identical twin who's an NPC?"

What you're talking about is using negative LA as straight ECL reduction or RHD reduction. That's a different approach from Partial Gestalt - and there's certainly merit to those approaches, and they can do some things that Partial Gestalt cannot, but likewise, Partial Gestalt can do some things that they cannot. There's issues no matter which approach you choose.


Negative LA as RHD reduction vs straight ECL reduction (to below RHD) ... I'm still inclined towards straight ECL reduction over RHD reduction.
RHD reduction needs to be applied from the beginning of the game, even if the PCs aren't using it, for consistencies sake.
Straight ECL reduction only matters if/when a player turns a negative LA creature into a PC. Same for Partial Gestalt.


RHD reduction runs into a very real issue in that many of the creatures that merit negative LA suffer from massive RHD inflation, to turn them into high-HP bruisers and boost their HD-derived stats, disregarding any abilities they may or may not have. Reducing their RHD to make them consistent with the ECL their capabilities warrant, strips them of their only real attribute, making them even weaker.


The NPC Twin is a hypothetical, pointing out that RHD reduction makes a PC inferior to an otherwise identical NPC by virtue of being a PC. That's wrong, IMO. I believe that the PC should always be as good or better than (after gaining a class level), the NPC.




Okay, we're just talking past each other. My impression is that the overall workload is reduced if somebody rebuilds things upfront, in a thread like this, and then neither the DM nor the player has to do any extraneous math, and we can deliver a simple product that uses a single, unified ruleset. Your counterargument is that the upfront work requires a lot of messy decision-making that's completely unnecessary, and it ultimately won't really reduce the downstream workload.

That's rewriting the entire Monster Manual, and then (ultimately/eventually) redoing MM2-5, and then redoing the new monster sections of all the splatbooks.
That's a massive amount of work to be done, and runs into the fact that almost all of those entries are not covered by the OGL - which means as an open access community resource, there would be the very real possibility of legal action by WotC, ignoring that posting that much non-OGL content probably also runs right into the forum rule against posting copyrighted content.




On the other hand, your impression is that the overall workload is reduced if we just develop a recommended design mandate that DM's can pass on to their players, and then it only has to be used when we want to use it, and we don't have to change anything if we don't want to. My counterargument is that the product is less convenient for the downstream users to work with, it cobbles together different variant rulesets, and doesn't change things that should be changed.

I thought you were suggesting assigning an amount of RHD reduction as the negative LA, but leaving the work of applying the RHD reduction to the DMs using the system.
What things that should be changed are you specifically referring to?

The only variant ruleset required with the partial gestalt approach is the gestalt ruleset. Sure, it goes well with the use of Fractional BAB/Saves, but that's not required.



I, personally, feel that as an open community resource, we want this to be as widely compatible as possible.
Therefore the changes required to use this should only come into play if and when it becomes relevant - ie, someone wants to play a creature that merits a negative LA.
RHD reduction would need to be in use from the very beginning of the game, as it involves a significant amount of rewriting creature statblocks.
Negative LA as straight ECL reduction or Partial Gestalt levels is a change that only needs to be implemented upon those important characters (PCs and certain special NPCs) that utilize a creature that merits negative LA.


My personal opinion is that RHD reduction doesn't substantively reduce the amount of work required to create a negative LA creature on the player side, and complicates matters for the DM in that everything then needs to utilize RHD reduction.



Unless I'm mistaken, the only thing RHD reduction provides that Partial Gestalt does not allow for, is playing a negative LA creature at an ECL lower than it's number of RHD.
But that can be done with negative LA being a straight ECL reduction.
And the only thing RHD reduction provides that straight ECL reduction does not, is avoiding potential early access issues, and having BAB/base Saves in excess of ECL.


Partial Gestalt and straight ECL reduction are both additive and focused forms of negative LA - they only affect PCs and special NPCs, are in addition to existing material, and no other changes need be made.
RHD reduction is a subtractive and unfocused form of negative LA - it affects all creatures that merit negative LA, and takes away from them.
Level Adjustment shouldn't be relevant for typical examples of a creature, IMO.



For that matter, negative LA as straight ECL reduction and Partial Gestalt could even be combined - apply the Negative LA as straight ECL reduction, but then as you level, apply each new class level as a partial gestalt with one of the RHD, until you're up to ECL=RHD.
Still has possible issues with early access/qualifications, but that's still mostly only around the margins.





I don't really believe that this discussion is going to progress much further than this, because it's pretty clear that we're just looking at the project from different perspectives, and ultimately just talking past each other.
If that's your choice, so be it.
Looking at things from different perspectives is fine, but if we're only talking past each other/not getting what the other is saying because of a misunderstanding/misinterpretation of what the other said, then I think there's still room for the discussion to make progress - if only after realizing that there was a misunderstanding/misinterpretation in the first place.

[Blue Jay]

What you're talking about is using negative LA as straight ECL reduction or RHD reduction. That's a different approach from Partial Gestalt - and there's certainly merit to those approaches, and they can do some things that Partial Gestalt cannot, but likewise, Partial Gestalt can do some things that they cannot. There's issues no matter which approach you choose.

Okay, as a little insight into Blue Jay's thought process, I'm mostly thinking in terms of the final product. So, when you say "partial gestalt can do some things that the other systems can't," I'm instantly trying to figure out why I would want a partial-gestalt character instead of a reduced-RHD character. There are some specific build details, like a possible edge in my saving throw bonuses or a slightly wider selection of class skills for a few levels; but for the most part, the final product doesn't do anything or open up any real opportunities that the other final products don't also open up. Maybe I'm treating that as a bigger deal than it needs to be: I mean, it clearly seems more important to me than it does to you. I don't know.

But, you think partial-gestalt has two major practical advantages, which are (1) less work of upfront; and (2) easy to plug-and-play only when you want or need it.

I'll concede on #1: my preferred method requires more work up front. Changing RHD is not a trivial thing. On the other hand, I'm not sure that the process of estimating the appropriate LA is much simpler for partial gestalt.

But, I'm still not convinced about #2. I mean, I agree with what you're saying, that you only have to apply partial-gestalt when you want to, but I'm still not keen on your explanation of why you can't do the same for reduced-RHD.

The only real objection you've brought up is this "identical twin" paradox, which I think is a pretty flimsy objection, for three reasons:
There are already rules that allow HD variation within a race, so it's not a completely alien, off-the-wall idea.
PC's will usually get better build allowances than the basic monster got, so reduced-RHD monster PC's will still frequently be stronger than typical monsters of their race.
Even if PC's do have weaker racial abilities than NPC's, it will almost never have any actual negative effects on the game.

And then you also keep saying that I can't use the reduced-RHD system unless I rebuild every monster in every manual ever before I sit down at the gaming table. And that's not fair. I mean, I kind of feel like that's what needs to be done eventually, but it's not like the game can't function if only some of its monsters have been modified.

[VisitingDaGulag]

how would you suggest changing the ECL calculation without altering LA?Anything other than straight adding them. I know I've seen one that related certain amounts of LA to free RHD.

the assessed LA is wrong. Not because the equation itself is inherently flawedThat's a fine position, I was just wondering if you have any reasoning for it against position #1.

Hit Dice is a fundamental characteristic. It cannot be changed without changing almost every other aspect of a creature in some way, shape, or form.RHD, you mean. That's a good argument against position #2



Changing how ECL works is ludicrous. It's impossible to create a simple formula that would take the printed HD and LA for every monster and spit out a value for ECL which is the value we think is appropriate for that monster.That's quite the claim. I'll have to go find someone who's done this before...


Edit: found it (http://minmaxforum.com/index.php?topic=8770)

pick a creature from the Monster Manual, and demonstrate for us how you would change its ECL without changing either its RHD or its LA, because none of us has any idea how you imagine this working.Ok. RAW ECL = (class HD + template LA + Racial LA) + RHD becomes ECL = (class HD + template LA + Racial LA) + If positive (RHD-2RLA) . Only one term changed... unless there is racial casting.

So a Minotaur Fighter 1 would be ECL 5 (1+0+2+6-2*2). No racial spellcasting to worry about and no BAB, skill point, hp or natural healing boost if desired. LA buyoff is still a cost in this method compared to negative LA, but that might be okay balance.

After a look around other races I could do the math in my head: a Gnoll after taking her first class level would be ECL2, a Sorc 1 Rakshasa ECL8 (but with Sorc 1 casting rather than Sorc8), a Sprite wizard 1 would be ECL4, etc.

Edit: changed absolute value to a conditional positive only.

[Blue Jay]

Ok. RAW ECL = (class HD + template LA + Racial LA) + RHD becomes ECL = (class HD + template LA + Racial LA) + |RHD-2RLA| . Only one term changed.

Awesome. Are you actually using an absolute value in there? It doesn't seem like that's what you're doing, but that's what those "|...|" symbols mean.

If you did mean to use an absolute value, it's a pretty arbitrary formula. Basically, ECL is lowest when LA = RHD/2, and it increases as you go higher or lower than that. So, creatures with high or low LA (relative to their RHD) have their ECL increased (relative to the SRD value), while creatures with medium LA (relative to their RHD) have their ECL decreased. I'm not exactly sure what this formula accomplishes.

But if you didn't mean for that to be an absolute value, then all you've done is invert the racial LA. You've added LA once, then subtracted it twice, which basically just means racial LA is now a number that you subtract from character level to determine ECL. So, all you've done is change ECL by changing LA.

See, the problem is that any math you do here will ultimately boil down to defining a number that you add to the character's actual level to make an effective character level. So, what value is there in making the math more complicated than that?

---

Either way, I'm pretty sure at least one of your examples is wrong:

Minotaur fighter 1, ECL = (1+0+2)+(6-(2*2)) = 5 => no problem

Gnoll fighter 1, ECL = (1+0+1)+(2-(2*1)) = 2 => no problem

Rakshasa sorcerer 1 => problem. Are you using the LA from the SRD (+7)? Or the reassigned LA from Inevitability's thread (+3)? Either way, the math is still wrong:

LA +7: ECL = (1+0+7)+(7-(2*7)) = 1 (or, if you did intend that to be an absolute value there, it yields ECL = 15)
LA +3: ECL = (1+0+3)+(7-(2*3)) = 5

Sprite wizard 1, ECL = wait, what is "sprite"? Pixie?

ECL = (1+0+4)+(1-(2*4)) = -3 (or, with absolute value, ECL = 12)

[VisitingDaGulag]

Oops. I mistated it. If positive (x) != |X|. In the first, if x is negative, the term is thrown out (zeroed). In the second, a large negative X becomes large positive x value. I'll edit the above.

Rakasha's have racial casting, so you don't gain free virtual class levels (of sorc) when you should only gain lousy RHD.

Edit: Here's someone else (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?537937-In-3-5-D-amp-D-powergaming-campaign-is-this-too-much-or-too-little-Melee-build) who tinkered with their ECL formula rather than rewrite hundreds of LAs or RHDs.

[Blue Jay]

Oops. I mistated it. If positive (x) != |X|. In the first, if x is negative, the term is thrown out (zeroed). In the second, a large negative X becomes large positive x value. I'll edit the above.

Okay. So, ECL = (class levels) + (template LA) + (racial LA) + (X), where X = the greater of 0 or (racial HD - (2 x racial LA)).

So, in cases where RLA > RHD/2, it becomes 0. Otherwise, you apply a correction factor to LA.

Let's pick some monsters and give them 1 class level, no templates, and see what their ECL would be with this formula:

3 racial HD
1 class level
LA +4

X = 3 - (2 x 4) < 0

ECL = 1 + 4 + 0 = 5
4 racial HD
1 class level
LA +2

X = 4 - (2 x 2) = 0

ECL = 1 + 2 + 0 = 3
5 racial HD
1 class level
LA +4

X = 5 - (2 x 4) < 0

ECL = 1 + 4 + 0 = 5
2 racial HD
1 class level
LA +3 (from Savage Species)

X = 2 - (2 x 3) < 0

ECL = 1 + 3 + 0 = 4
6 racial HD
1 class level
LA +4 (from Savage Species)

X = 6 - (2 x 4) < 0

ECL = 1 + 4 + 0 = 5
6 racial HD
1 class level
LA +2

X = 6 - (2 x 2) = 2

ECL = 1 + 2 + 2 = 5
6 racial HD
1 class level
LA +7

X = 6 - (2 x 7) < 0

ECL = 1 + 7 + 0 = 8
1 racial HD (unless they lose it for their class level)
1 class level
LA +4

X = 1 - (2 x 4) < 0

ECL = 1 + 4 = 5
7 racial HD
1 class level
LA +7

X = 7 - (2 x 7) < 0

ECL = 1 + 7 + 0 = 8
3 racial HD
1 class level
LA +7 (from Savage Species)

X = 3 = (2 x 7) < 0

ECL = 1 + 7 + 0 = 8
12 racial HD
1 class level
LA +5

X = 12 - (2 x 5) = 2

ECL = 1 + 5 + 2 = 9
7 racial HD
1 class level
LA +5

X = 7 - (2 x 5) < 0

ECL = 1 + 5 + 0 = 6

I actually think some of these are pretty good, but a lot of them are also problematic. Centaur, rakshasa, sphinx and treant stand out to me as overpowered for the ECL you get from this formula. The nymph might be something to watch closely too.

For comparative purposes, we can also just take the results here and translate them into a new LA that we can use in the original formula:

Aranea: LA +2
Centaur: LA -2
Ettercap: LA +0
Ghoul: LA +2
Medusa: LA -1
Minotaur: LA -2
Nymph: LA +1
Pixie: LA +4
Rakshasa: LA +0
Shadow: LA +5
Sphinx (Androsphinx): LA -3
Treant: LA -1

Looking at it from this perspective, it's pretty clear to me that there are some glaring problems. Your formula generally ends up being liberal: it seems to mostly avoid hosing anyone terribly, but it tends to give too much to a lot of monsters that don't really need the goodies. So, this doesn't get us any closer to the desirable goal of "balance": it just shifts the balance in a different direction.

This is the classical "garbage in, garbage out" problem in mathematics: you can't use math to fix problems with your underlying numbers. Wonky numbers give wonky results, no matter what mathematical formula you plug them into. The fundamental issue with the ECL system is that the basic numbers (RHD and LA) do not consistently correlate with the power level of a monster, so trying to estimate a monster's power level by using RHD and LA is kind of like trying to estimate how much money someone makes by using their shoe size and the last two digits of their mother's home phone number.

There's no way around the fact that you have to change the numbers in order to change the balance problems.

Frankly, I hope GWG and Daedroth keep going with their threads, and I hope I haven't derailed them too badly with this. I wish I could help them more with this project, but I just don't feel confident enough to say anything in particular on either thread. Maybe I'll just start throwing stuff out there and see if it somehow helps stimulate discussion.

I might also like to start a thread with a theme of "monster fixes" or something, where we actually try to come up with simple ways to make weak monsters more interesting, either by reducing HD-inflation, adding thematically appropriate abilities, offering class synergies, etc.

[VisitingDaGulag]

Oh wow you cranked some numbers out. ;)

ECL = (class levels) + (template LA) + (racial LA) + (X), where X = the greater of 0 or (racial HD - (2 x racial LA))Almost. It's:
ECL = (class levels) + (template LA) + (racial LA) + (X), where X = the greater of 0 or (racial HD - (2 x racial LA)) or the RHD that grant casting levels


Centaur, rakshasa, sphinx and treant stand out to me as overpowered for the ECL you get from this formula. The nymph might be something to watchHaving actually played a centaur (the DM allowed free 2LA) I did not enjoy the hoof / stairs / hoisting self up rope problem that was present at lower ECLs. Compounded by the size issue, I often just stayed in the woods and didn't play when the humanoids went to town. :smallfrown:

Rakshasa's have racial casting (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/rakshasa.htm), so their RHD counts up to that amount (fully, in this case). So they'd be ECL14. I apologize for restating the link badly. They are basically LA+7 0RHD monsters with a great sorc 7 chassis. ECL14 might be too harsh, but that's also the value from the standard ECL formula.

I think someone playing a treant would be hilarious. You're starting where E6 ends. The size is still awkward but the HP is about right for a mundane. The vulnerability to fire takes a long time to overcome, if I'm not mistaken. Can we find anywhere only someone has actually played a treant (at any ECL)?

As rakshasa's the sphyinx with racial casting is still painful. The other ones appear decent but you'd have to get permission to use (cohort) LA'd creatures. I'm fine with that, but it does cause others' pause.

Nymphs also have full, normal ECL due to racial casting. If you want casting, you're pretty much going to have to invest ECL.


This is the classical "garbage in, garbage out" problem in mathematics: you can't use math to fix problems with your underlying numbers.Understood. Can I get you to try again? I don't mind discussing treant, since its the only one without full ECL racial casting. Perhaps it would be usable on a PsyWar with augmented compression to become normal sized?

[Blue Jay]

Maybe it's time to take this to another thread: GWG has been really accommodating with us so far, but this is his thread, and we're not talking about his topic anymore.

Go ahead and start your own thread about ECL formulas, and I'll join you there.

[Beni-Kujaku]

I found this thread a bit randomly and wondered if we could resurrect it. The matter of negative LA is pretty interesting to me and I would like to see more creatures covered, even if I have to take the matter in hands, since GWG seems to have abandoned it a long time ago.

The two methods of evaluation are distinct, but have both their merits. The ECL lower than RHD is immediately applicable and beginner-friendly (since you don't have to recalculate every save and BAB), but it breaks at very high levels. I really don't think there are that many feats or spells that make this much of a difference before epic (as long as you don't give the creature caster levels above its ECL, which is common sense).

The gestalt method is more general and will not break anything (except to understand how many racial hit dice the resulting creature would have, but the easiest choice is then that the RHD is equal to the ECL minus the number of class levels (including monster/PC gestalt levels).

This thread having been started on the first method, I believe we should continue this way, maybe adding an addendum for the gestalt method. For example, the Large Animated Object would be -1 as a flat ECL reduction, but -2 as a PC gestalt (the two are obviously not exactly equivalent, but we can find an almost agreement).



Go ahead and start your own thread about ECL formulas, and I'll join you there.

Moreover, Blue Jay told about a possible new thread that might replace or complement this one. Has it been done, or forgotten?

[emulord]

This thread seemed to get derailed due to arguments in the methodology, so the next one should start with a poll to decide what method to use.
The main ones seemed to be
1. Negative LA = free gestalt (GWG's method)
2. Negative LA = subtract HD and rebuild monster
3. Negative LA = lower ECL (aka early entry danger)

Option 1 is easy and gives the needed class features a monster was missing.
Option 2 allows you to play the character concept at lower level but is harder
Option 3 is easiest but allows optimization/late game shenanigans.

Then the thread rules should have no arguing about the methodology after the poll is done :)

[Beni-Kujaku]

Do you know how to make a poll in GitP ? Or is it just asking a question and compiling all the answers that people give. Also, do you think it would be better to create a new thread or to continue this one? Creating a new thread might make the poll more impactful and mark a disjunction, but I am reluctant to just abandon this thread that did exactly what I want to do.

[truemane]

Metamagic Mod: there's a procedure for re-opening expired threads. This is not it.