LA is Fundamentally Broken, or, Why Variable Costs for Fixed Benefits are Bad

[Cosi]

LA is broken. It's not broken because the numbers are wrong (though to be clear, they are super wrong). It's broken because the paradigm it suggests cannot be made to work, or rather can only be made to work through a level of effort that cannot be completely on an acceptable time scale. LA says that you get a pile of SLAs, stats, and other stuff (whatever being a monster would get you) and in exchange you are some number of levels behind the curve. Intuitively, this seems fair. You get some stuff from being a Minotaur, and that stuff is roughly equal to what you lose for being a 5th level Barbarian instead of a 13th level one.

But levels aren't linear. The gap between a 5th level character and a 9th level character is not the same as the gap between a 9th level character and a 13th level character. That same four level difference implies an entirely different swing in abilities at different time in a character's career, but the abilities gained for assuming it remain the same. The easiest example of this is with casting classes. A character who is a 5th level Sorcerer instead of a 9th level Sorcerer is losing two 2nd level spells per day, six 3rd level spells per day, four 4th level spells per day, two 2nd level spells known, three 3rd level spells known, and two 4th level spells known. When she gains four levels and is a 9th level Sorcerer rather than a 13th level Sorcerer, she loses almost the same numbers, but of 4th, 5th, and 6th level spells. Clearly, those costs are quite different, and as a result whatever she is receiving must be either broken as a 5th level Sorcerer, or underpowered as a 9th level Sorcerer.

This means that no amount of tweaking the numbers on LA can make monsters viable as characters. The paradigm is broken, and the only way to fix it is to scale down the levels lost over time to make up the increasing costs of a foregone level of casting. Of course, this result is more general. It suggests fundamental problems with the balance of PrCs that cost spellcaster levels, and with the multi-classing system. Those problems are real too, and the all stem from a fundamental misunderstanding of the cost of a level and the viability of balancing around that cost.

[Fouredged Sword]

I am going to come out and say that for the most part, you are correct, with a caveat. If the party is playing mundane classes LA works pretty well. Something that gives you roughly +1 to hit, +1 to a save or two, and +5-6 HP, and +1 to multiple skills is roughly worth 1 point of LA if you are taking levels in fighter. That can be as little as a race that grants +2 str, con, and wis. Fighters are liner, as are many of the mundane classes.

A level in fighter grants 1/2 a feat, +1bab, 1d10+con HP, +1.1 to saves, and 2+int skill points... That isn't much. If you are balancing LA vs fighter levels it is pretty easy.

It's when you get things like wizards and other tier 1-2 classes that things become impossible to square the round peg. Each spell level is more or less a whole new thing that cannot be readily balanced VS LA. The only way I think you could balance it would be for LA to add +spellcaster levels to a single spellcasting class you otherwise have access to OR add to a specific thermatic class (sorcerer levels as a mindflayer.)

My two cents.

[Grod_The_Giant]

For the most part, I agree. My preferred solution is to replace LA entirely with racial hit die. That keeps your chassis-type numbers up to par, and folds the cost of your special abilities into the basic structure of the game-- the price you pay for those Ogre levels is that you didn't take Barbarian levels.

[Jormengand]

Some templates, such as fiendish creature (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/fiendishCreature.htm), do give scaling benefits. In Fiendish Creature's case, it's not nearly enough to make it be worth the LA, but it technically could be engineered without too much effort to make LA make sense.

Also, arguably bonuses to primary casting scores are benefits which scale over levels - having 26 int instead of 20 isn't very helpful at first level (it gives you a +3 to save DCs and nothing else) but is a lot more helpful at 15th level, where the bump in INT gives you an extra spell of 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 6th, 7th and 8th level.

Finally, the difference between 15th and 13th level nominally is the same as the difference between 3rd and 1st. Two 1st-level characters should be able to stand a 50% chance of killing a 3rd-level character and two 13th-level characters should be able to have a 50% chance of killing a 15th-level character. LA isn't great on the basis that that's not true, but the intent (or at least the belief) was that it was true.

[Hackulator]

You are operating under the false assumption that monster characters need to be balanced against non-monster characters. They don't, and that's one of the reason normal races can rule a world filled with monsters, and why you would ever play a normal character when monsters are available.

Also the false assumption that full casters are a good place to base a balance argument off of.

[Necroticplague]

You are operating under the false assumption that monster characters need to be balanced against non-monster characters. They don't, and that's one of the reason normal races can rule a world filled with monsters, and why you would ever play a normal character when monsters are available.

Sooo....you're basically arguing that monstrous races are supposed to be trap options?

[Uckleverry]

Welcome to 2008!

There could be two ways to fix the issue, at least to an extent.

You could increase the baseline assumption of what the race part of a character grants. If the baseline is stronger, it won't be as difficult to fold in the more powerful races into the new 'LA +0' category.

You could also introduce proper monstrous classes. Not the current racial HD and non-HD messes, but actual 1-20 classes with proper class features and abilities. This approach would probably necessitate a shift away from the current idea that a monster entry is some sort of platonic representation of a given creature. And probably discarding the idea that levels are a real, discernible quantity in the game world.

[Cosi]

I am going to come out and say that for the most part, you are correct, with a caveat. If the party is playing mundane classes LA works pretty well. Something that gives you roughly +1 to hit, +1 to a save or two, and +5-6 HP, and +1 to multiple skills is roughly worth 1 point of LA if you are taking levels in fighter. That can be as little as a race that grants +2 str, con, and wis. Fighters are liner, as are many of the mundane classes.

Well, that's not even really true for all mundane classes. For example. Rogue Bonus Feats are pretty big deal, as are maneuvers.


For the most part, I agree. My preferred solution is to replace LA entirely with racial hit die. That keeps your chassis-type numbers up to par, and folds the cost of your special abilities into the basic structure of the game-- the price you pay for those Ogre levels is that you didn't take Barbarian levels.

Well, RHD aren't exactly better. They still have a similar problem with costing levels, and they don't really correlate with power at all. The Pit Fiend is CR 20, and has 18 HD. The Arcanoloth (or whichever it is -- maybe Ultraloth? -- the one in the MM3 with a big pile of SLAs) is CR 13, and also has 18 HD. Clearly, one of those is way better than the other.


Sooo....you're basically arguing that monstrous races are supposed to be trap options?

In fairness, that is the position the people who wrote Savage Species took, so he's not exactly wrong. His actual logic is stupid though. Monsters probably do rule the world, because while the make worse PCs most people aren't PCs, and monsters get to be monsters just for waking up in the morning. Maybe no PC is ever going to be a Hill Giant, but the armies of the Hill Giants are still entirely composed of people who are as powerful as a 7th level Barbarian just for being adults.


You could increase the baseline assumption of what the race part of a character grants. If the baseline is stronger, it won't be as difficult to fold in the more powerful races into the new 'LA +0' category.

Agreed, with the caveat that it doesn't need to be race. You just need some resource that some people can trade for monster abilities and other people can trade for other stuff. Could do something with magic items maybe.


You could also introduce proper monstrous classes. Not the current racial HD and non-HD messes, but actual 1-20 classes with proper class features and abilities. This approach would probably necessitate a shift away from the current idea that a monster entry is some sort of platonic representation of a given creature. And probably discarding the idea that levels are a real, discernible quantity in the game world.

I think monsters should probably be better integrated with the class system, but the possibilities and pit-falls of that deserve their own thread. One thing to note is the viability of combining this with the previous. Give each class a selection of an ability from some big list every few levels, and have monsters be characters that made certain selections. So some people take the Beguiler class and pick Bardic Music to become Bards, but other people take the Beguiler class and pick "has tentacles" to become Mind Flayers or "demon traits" to become Succubi.

[zlefin]

Using the LA buyoff rules slightly mitigates the effect OP describes.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Well, RHD aren't exactly better. They still have a similar problem with costing levels, and they don't really correlate with power at all. The Pit Fiend is CR 20, and has 18 HD. The Arcanoloth (or whichever it is -- maybe Ultraloth? -- the one in the MM3 with a big pile of SLAs) is CR 13, and also has 18 HD. Clearly, one of those is way better than the other.
You'd have to adjust them to match the actual power of the monster, to be sure-- look at the stack of abilities it gives you and figure out how many levels of a hypothetical "Outsider" class you'd have to stretch them out over to have that hypothetical class be balanced.

[Cosi]

Using the LA buyoff rules slightly mitigates the effect OP describes.

Yes, those are good. Well, they're good insofar as the buyoff happens at a reasonable rate (which it only really does for +1 LA).


You'd have to adjust them to match the actual power of the monster, to be sure-- look at the stack of abilities it gives you and figure out how many levels of a hypothetical "Outsider" class you'd have to stretch them out over to have that hypothetical class be balanced.

Oh, I'm not saying the problem of "monsters as PCs" isn't solvable. There are good solutions to that (probably, as has been suggested several times, roughly in the vein of "monsters as classes"), but the existing monsters and the existing solutions for playing them work poorly.

[CharonsHelper]

Using the LA buyoff rules slightly mitigates the effect OP describes.


Yes, those are good. Well, they're good insofar as the buyoff happens at a reasonable rate (which it only really does for +1 LA).

I forget - was it the ECL or actual level which had to be 3xLA before you could buy it off? If the former - then +2 could be reasonably bought off too.

Really though - the game was not designed for monstrous PCs. They were an afterthought of "wouldn't it be cool if...", and they generally erred on the side of making them weak (likely somewhat on purpose and for some of the same logic that martials are weak - they overestimated abilities which are always on vs spells).

If you integrated them into the system from the ground up you would likely make them levels with horrid HD to make up for all of their stats and/or abilities. But they would have to be designed as PC-able first and then added to the Monster Manual instead of the other way around.

Really though - it's the sort of thing which would be easier to integrate into a point-buy system. (now - point-buy systems have their own issues - but they are easier to integrate this sort of thing into)

[Grod_The_Giant]

Oh, I'm not saying the problem of "monsters as PCs" isn't solvable. There are good solutions to that (probably, as has been suggested several times, roughly in the vein of "monsters as classes"), but the existing monsters and the existing solutions for playing them work poorly.
A pretty well-recognized fact, methinks.

[Fouredged Sword]

I forget - was it the ECL or actual level which had to be 3xLA before you could buy it off? If the former - then +2 could be reasonably bought off

Worse. Hd discounting rhd.

[Hackulator]

Sooo....you're basically arguing that monstrous races are supposed to be trap options?

That's like saying anything that's not a full caster is a trap option because its not as good as a full caster. Monster PCs are an optional rule and don't need to be directly balanced with normal PCs. Hell, even trying is just a stupid waste of time anyway as the game is not balanced regardless.

[ryu]

That's like saying anything that's not a full caster is a trap option because its not as good as a full caster. Monster PCs are an optional rule and don't need to be directly balanced with normal PCs. Hell, even trying is just a stupid waste of time anyway as the game is not balanced regardless.

If you want to argue that balance is meaningless dramatically lower the LA of many races ANYWAY as their power is not significant and it would be nice to play something that isn't just a funny looking human and still be relevant on the main curve.

[Hackulator]

If you want to argue that balance is meaningless dramatically lower the LA of many races ANYWAY as their power is not significant and it would be nice to play something that isn't just a funny looking human and still be relevant on the main curve.

You're relevant on whatever curve your DM chooses unless he's bad at his job.

[ryu]

You're relevant on whatever curve your DM chooses unless he's bad at his job.

Not if the rest of the party is head and shoulders above you you're not. Worse still if it's head, shoulders, AND torso above you for some of the more ridiculous LA.

[Florian]

This means that no amount of tweaking the numbers on LA can make monsters viable as characters.

No. And they should not be. Monsters simply follow other design rules/patterns than regular characters and this mainly is what breaks LA.

[Lans]

I think monster themed classes would work, years ago on the wizards site somebody did a set for a lot of the types. Instead of leveling up as solar, you level up as outsider and get a choice of abilities that can roughly approximate what a solar does

[Yahzi]

The easiest example of this is with casting classes...
Isn't all of that equally true if you dual class? So stopping at 5th Sorcerer and becoming anything else completely knocks you off the curve.

It's not LA that's broken; it's multi-classing of any kind for any kind of spell caster.

[Necroticplague]

Isn't all of that equally true if you dual class? So stopping at 5th Sorcerer and becoming anything else completely knocks you off the curve.

It's not LA that's broken; it's multi-classing of any kind for any kind of spell caster.

On principle, in a more well-designed game, multiclassing would generally be a bad idea. After all, you're losing out on the abilities appropriate to your level to get the lower-level abilities of a different class. So you'd be, say, losing out on 6-th level appropriate abilities for 1st-level appropriate abilities, which would be a bad trade.

[CharonsHelper]

On principle, in a more well-designed game, multiclassing would generally be a bad idea. After all, you're losing out on the abilities appropriate to your level to get the lower-level abilities of a different class. So you'd be, say, losing out on 6-th level appropriate abilities for 1st-level appropriate abilities, which would be a bad trade.

So... like Pathfinder? In Pathfinder multi-classing is generally a bad decision, though it's sometimes worth a 1-2 level dip (MAYBE up to 4 into Urogue) for a martial if they have a specific plan. But unlike 3.5, multi-classing in general is sub-par for everyone.

[Grod_The_Giant]

On principle, in a more well-designed game, multiclassing would generally be a bad idea. After all, you're losing out on the abilities appropriate to your level to get the lower-level abilities of a different class. So you'd be, say, losing out on 6-th level appropriate abilities for 1st-level appropriate abilities, which would be a bad trade.
I disagree-- in a well-designed class/level game, multiclassing would involve trading power for options. The lost power should be noticeable, but not so much that you can't contribute; the gained options should be usable, but not so much that you overshadow your teammates.

I'd point to 5e spellcaster multiclassing as a good way to do it. You delay your access to high-level spells, but you continue to get higher-level slots, and you can use your slots to cast and up-cast spells from both lists. A 2nd level spell cast out of a 3rd level slot usually isn't as good as a 3rd level, but it's strong enough to be useful, and can potentially be better if the situation favors it.

[Hackulator]

On principle, in a more well-designed game, multiclassing would generally be a bad idea. After all, you're losing out on the abilities appropriate to your level to get the lower-level abilities of a different class. So you'd be, say, losing out on 6-th level appropriate abilities for 1st-level appropriate abilities, which would be a bad trade.

This makes ZERO sense. It's perfectly reasonable in a well designed game for higher level abilities and lower level abilities to have parity and your advancement to be about having more abilities, not just strictly better ones. You are also suggesting that on principle you should make people's available character options once the game starts limited or bad.

LA is fine because the majority of games are monsters or normal races, not both. If you want to mix those things, you do a little tweaking, just like you have to do in almost every D&D game anyway as the DM and you move on. Any direct change you make to the LA system as it stands might fix one problem but likely create others.

[Drakevarg]

If you want to argue that balance is meaningless dramatically lower the LA of many races ANYWAY as their power is not significant and it would be nice to play something that isn't just a funny looking human and still be relevant on the main curve.

This is pretty much how I run monster races in my games, though I'm very choosy about what the options are (my settings are never 'everything exists' fantasy kitchen sinks). Generally speaking, RHD is enough because versatility trumps raw power and whatever boost monster races get they generally tend to be rather specific. If anything LA would often be more fair if you reversed it since I don't think many would argue that a Hill Giant, for example, is fully capable of outperforming a 16th level Barbarian.

LA isn't an indicator of balance, it's an indicator of how much the devs don't want you to play as one.

[Cosi]

That's like saying anything that's not a full caster is a trap option because its not as good as a full caster. Monster PCs are an optional rule and don't need to be directly balanced with normal PCs. Hell, even trying is just a stupid waste of time anyway as the game is not balanced regardless.

I mean, yeah, it is. Or the caster is broken because it's better than the Fighter. Whatever. I don't understand how you can take this position and then ever complain about any balance issue ever at all. "You had the option of playing a caster instead of a Fighter, so it's okay that I have eight pet Pit Fiends at 15th level!"


You're relevant on whatever curve your DM chooses unless he's bad at his job.

It's the designer's job to make the system balanced.


I think monster themed classes would work, years ago on the wizards site somebody did a set for a lot of the types. Instead of leveling up as solar, you level up as outsider and get a choice of abilities that can roughly approximate what a solar does

It's not LA that's broken; it's multi-classing of any kind for any kind of spell caster.

On principle, in a more well-designed game, multiclassing would generally be a bad idea. After all, you're losing out on the abilities appropriate to your level to get the lower-level abilities of a different class. So you'd be, say, losing out on 6-th level appropriate abilities for 1st-level appropriate abilities, which would be a bad trade.

I'm going to group all of these together, because my answers to them are kind of related.

First, I don't think traditional open multi-classing works at all (assuming you want characters to be balanced). Getting it to work requires, I think, essentially abandoning the notion of "class" as a thing. Instead just give people abilities to pick, and let all of those abilities scale. That's workable, and you can hack classes to kind of work like that in various ways if you're super attached to the idea of having Fighters and Wizards instead of "people with Cleave" and "people with fireball". It does make multiple resource management systems structurally unworkable, which is a non-trivial cost.

Second, I don't think you can actually give up on multi-classing entirely. People will want to be Thief/Mages or Paladin/Druids or whatever. Some of that is because you will have niches that aren't filled yet (for example, it took several years for 3e to get a class who could do "swords" and "arcane magic" from 1st level). But some of it is also because people simply want to do things that are weird and different. There are people out there who want to be a Psion/Artificer because there isn't a Psion/Artificer base class, and if you can do so reasonably easily there's no reason not to oblige them.

Considering those two, you need to find something that feels like multi-classing, but isn't "put a bunch of levels in a pile and hope it is somehow not terrible". You could put everyone on the same (or a very similar) resource management system and let people get some number of picks from other classes -- this is what 4e should have done. You could make everyone Gestalt automatically, but that makes balancing things horrifying (also, it makes DMing for encounters with multiple PC-level threats a nightmare). My favored solution is to give people a subclass. You make a Wizard, and then if you want to do a Rage Mage you take the Barbarian subclass. If you want to do a Mystic Theurge instead, take the Cleric subclass. If you just want More Magic you can either take the Sorcerer subclass or maybe the Wizard subclass.

That system has the benefit of being extensible pretty easily to monsters too. You figure out what kind of class a Solar is (probably Cleric or Paladin) then you write an "Angel" subclass so the Solar is just 20th level Paladin/Angel. You can also do this for concepts that might not carry a whole class on their own, like "Gladiator" or "Noble".


I disagree-- in a well-designed class/level game, multiclassing would involve trading power for options. The lost power should be noticeable, but not so much that you can't contribute; the gained options should be usable, but not so much that you overshadow your teammates.

Sure. But why should that be done through open multi-classing?


This makes ZERO sense. It's perfectly reasonable in a well designed game for higher level abilities and lower level abilities to have parity and your advancement to be about having more abilities, not just strictly better ones. You are also suggesting that on principle you should make people's available character options once the game starts limited or bad.

The reason to have high level abilities be better than low level ones is so that you can have zero-to-hero stories. Those require that characters start out with abilities dramatically more limited than the ones they finish with. You can't do Wheel of Time if all Rand is allowed to do is get new abilities that are roughly as good as his existing ones.


Any direct change you make to the LA system as it stands might fix one problem but likely create others.

Why don't we unpack and examine those problems so every DM who wants to support a minotaur PC isn't asked to solve the same problem?

[lord_khaine]

LA is fine because the majority of games are monsters or normal races, not both. If you want to mix those things, you do a little tweaking, just like you have to do in almost every D&D game anyway as the DM and you move on. Any direct change you make to the LA system as it stands might fix one problem but likely create others.

I agree with this. The original premise about why LA is broken is faulty, because we dont have a fixed baseline.

The problems isnt that levels are not liniar, the problem is that some levels are, while others isnt. And so depending on if you compare a monster to a fighter, warblade or wizard you are going to get some wildly different LA values.
So as such the LA system is valid enough, but the GM needs to adjust the actual LA value depending on what the remaining party is playing.


If anything LA would often be more fair if you reversed it since I don't think many would argue that a Hill Giant, for example, is fully capable of outperforming a 16th level Barbarian.

But a Hill Giant Barbarian 1 is pretty likely to outperform a Barbarian 17 at lower levels of optimisation. +14 Str, +8 con and +9 NA is going to do a lot for the basic numbers, that 16 Barbarian levels cant really outweight.

[Drakevarg]

But a Hill Giant Barbarian 1 is pretty likely to outperform a Barbarian 17 at lower levels of optimisation. +14 Str, +8 con and +9 NA is going to do a lot for the basic numbers, that 16 Barbarian levels cant really outweight.

You'd have to be pretty low-op, given the non-giant can rage pretty much all day, doesn't get tired from it, gets twice as many attacks per round, etc. Heck, throw Power Attack in there and he could probably deal more raw damage than the giant without even having a lower attack bonus. For pretty much everything but tanking and lifting heavy objects, the vanilla barb wins.

[Cosi]

But a Hill Giant Barbarian 1 is pretty likely to outperform a Barbarian 17 at lower levels of optimisation. +14 Str, +8 con and +9 NA is going to do a lot for the basic numbers, that 16 Barbarian levels cant really outweight.

If a 17th level Barbarian isn't as effective as a 1st level Hill Giant Barbarian, that reflects really poorly on Barbarian as a class because the 1st level Hill Giant Barbarian is CR 8 and the 17th level Barbarian is CR 17.

[CharonsHelper]

If a 17th level Barbarian isn't as effective as a 1st level Hill Giant Barbarian, that reflects really poorly on Barbarian as a class because the 1st level Hill Giant Barbarian is CR 8 and the 17th level Barbarian is CR 17.

Yes - but the CR8 Hill Giant Barb NPC gets mundane gear while the 1st level Hill Giant Barb PC will have better stats and gets magic gear out the wazoo. In 3.x, a lot of a martial's power comes from gear & stats.

[Grod_The_Giant]

You'd have to be pretty low-op, given the non-giant can rage pretty much all day, doesn't get tired from it, gets twice as many attacks per round, etc. Heck, throw Power Attack in there and he could probably deal more raw damage than the giant without even having a lower attack bonus. For pretty much everything but tanking and lifting heavy objects, the vanilla barb wins.
The Hill Giant is also giving up 4 HD, downsizing 12, and dropping their BAB by 8 compared to the Barbarian. The +14 Strength nearly makes your attack rolls equal to core-only power attack, but you're leaving a two iterative attacks on the table when you do. And that's not even talking class features (another +2 Str while raging, another 4 rages/day; this only gets worse with splats, mind), so offense-wise you lose pretty bad.

Defense-wise... actually, the hit points work out exactly the same (surprisingly the heck out of me), and the giant has an extra 9 NA... though I guess the Barbarian has DR 4/-- and gets an extra 17 hit points when they rage.


Yes - but the CR8 Hill Giant Barb NPC gets mundane gear while the 1st level Hill Giant Barb PC will have better stats and gets magic gear out the wazoo. In 3.x, a lot of a martial's power comes from gear & stats.
Equal ECL characters get equal wealth; it cancels out.

[Crake]

Equal ECL characters get equal wealth; it cancels out.

Correct, but what he meant was that the CR of an NPC hill giant is that of a hill giant without any gear. What he's saying is that a 17th level barbarian without any gear would also be a weak enemy.


LA is broken. It's not broken because the numbers are wrong (though to be clear, they are super wrong). It's broken because the paradigm it suggests cannot be made to work, or rather can only be made to work through a level of effort that cannot be completely on an acceptable time scale. LA says that you get a pile of SLAs, stats, and other stuff (whatever being a monster would get you) and in exchange you are some number of levels behind the curve. Intuitively, this seems fair. You get some stuff from being a Minotaur, and that stuff is roughly equal to what you lose for being a 5th level Barbarian instead of a 13th level one.

But levels aren't linear. The gap between a 5th level character and a 9th level character is not the same as the gap between a 9th level character and a 13th level character. That same four level difference implies an entirely different swing in abilities at different time in a character's career, but the abilities gained for assuming it remain the same. The easiest only example of this is with casting classes. A character who is a 5th level Sorcerer instead of a 9th level Sorcerer is losing two 2nd level spells per day, six 3rd level spells per day, four 4th level spells per day, two 2nd level spells known, three 3rd level spells known, and two 4th level spells known. When she gains four levels and is a 9th level Sorcerer rather than a 13th level Sorcerer, she loses almost the same numbers, but of 4th, 5th, and 6th level spells. Clearly, those costs are quite different, and as a result whatever she is receiving must be either broken as a 5th level Sorcerer, or underpowered as a 9th level Sorcerer.

This means that no amount of tweaking the numbers on LA can make monsters viable as characters. The paradigm is broken, and the only way to fix it is to scale down the levels lost over time to make up the increasing costs of a foregone level of casting. Of course, this result is more general. It suggests fundamental problems with the balance of PrCs that cost spellcaster levels, and with the multi-classing system. Those problems are real too, and the all stem from a fundamental misunderstanding of the cost of a level and the viability of balancing around that cost.

Fixed that for you.

Seriously though, it's only an issue for casters. The saying goes linear fighters, quadratic wizards. Most mundane classes are taken with varying amounts of light dips, a few barbarian levels here, a couple of fighter levels there. When was the last time you've seen 10 levels of rogue for the rogue special abilities? I haven't seen one for a LONG time. Most monster chassis are about on par with mundanes, medium or good bab, one or two good saves, and somewhere between 2 and 6+int skills/level, so that's not a problem, and then if you look at monster abilities as "class features", many class features don't scale with hit dice, only class levels, so if you're dipping a lot, most class features suffer from this as well.

[CharonsHelper]

Equal ECL characters get equal wealth; it cancels out.

No - I agree. I wasn't comparing the 17th level Barbarian with the 1st level Hill Giant Barbarian - I was comparing the PC Hill Giant Barbarian with the NPC Hill Giant Barbarian.

And really - I'd probably give more than +1 CR boost to the Hill Giant NPC even if he just got decent mundane gear instead of his default greatclub & hide, and considerably more than +1 CR if he got PC stats with adjustments instead of base Hill Giant stats.

Edit: Ninja'd in my own defense!

[Cosi]

Yes - but the CR8 Hill Giant Barb NPC gets mundane gear while the 1st level Hill Giant Barb PC will have better stats and gets magic gear out the wazoo. In 3.x, a lot of a martial's power comes from gear & stats.

Again, I think that if WBL swings your CR by 9 (which is more than the gap between "mirror match" and "not an appropriate threat"), something is wrong with your class.

FWIW, I think the 17th level Barbarian is still pretty clearly ahead on chassis. He gets an equal to-hit from just BAB, plus iteratives, plus a non-trivial STR score. But the arguments people are making to justify this can't help but make me think Barbarian is a pretty garbage class.

[CharonsHelper]

But the arguments people are making to justify this can't help but make me think Barbarian is a pretty garbage class.

It's a 3.5 base class martial.

Martials in general in 3.5 are pretty weak by level 17 relative to casters, and an optimized 3.5 martial will include a variety of dips, likely including several prestige classes.

It sounds like you just don't like the chassis of 3.5. (Which is fair - I'm prefer the balance tweaks into Pathfinder, and even then it begins to fall apart past 10-12th level.)

[Hackulator]

It's a 3.5 base class martial.

Martials in general in 3.5 are pretty weak by level 17 relative to casters, and an optimized 3.5 martial will include a variety of dips, likely including several prestige classes.

It sounds like you just don't like the chassis of 3.5. (Which is fair - I'm prefer the balance tweaks into Pathfinder, and even then it begins to fall apart past 10-12th level.)

Yeah a level 17 martial cannot compete directly against a level 17 caster.

However, they can OUTDAMAGE a level 17 caster unless the caster has some amount of optimization that the DM shouldn't really allow if he's having both casters and martials in his party.

Therefore, even though the caster is strictly stronger in direct confrontation, the martial can still be useful and rewarding to play over its lifetime.

[Uckleverry]

Considering those two, you need to find something that feels like multi-classing, but isn't "put a bunch of levels in a pile and hope it is somehow not terrible". You could put everyone on the same (or a very similar) resource management system and let people get some number of picks from other classes -- this is what 4e should have done. You could make everyone Gestalt automatically, but that makes balancing things horrifying (also, it makes DMing for encounters with multiple PC-level threats a nightmare). My favored solution is to give people a subclass. You make a Wizard, and then if you want to do a Rage Mage you take the Barbarian subclass. If you want to do a Mystic Theurge instead, take the Cleric subclass. If you just want More Magic you can either take the Sorcerer subclass or maybe the Wizard subclass.

You're describing a system that's pretty close to 4e multiclassing. You can spend feats (which are more plentiful in 4e) to pick powers and class features from other classes. You can just 'dip' (which is very common) or go deeper into a class to get more abilities. And it's balanced, you don't slow down advancement in your primary class.

And there's a version of gestalting too, but designed to play together with regular characters. And you can multiclass from a 4e gestalt combo too, using the multiclassing feat system.

Later 4e began to experiment with playable monster classes. You can multiclass into the vampire class, much like how you're describing your ideal system. And there are even 'classes' whose abilties are only available through multiclassing, representing concepts that aren't robust enough to justify a full blown class.

[Crake]

It's a 3.5 base class martial.

Martials in general in 3.5 are pretty weak by level 17 relative to casters, and an optimized 3.5 martial will include a variety of dips, likely including several prestige classes.

It sounds like you just don't like the chassis of 3.5. (Which is fair - I'm prefer the balance tweaks into Pathfinder, and even then it begins to fall apart past 10-12th level.)

Agreed, if you set your baseline to casters, everything else is going to seem garbage by comparison.

On the other hand, some races have inflated HD for their CR, and even worse inflated LA ontop, such that they become unplayable, but that's not a problem with LA, that's a problem with the race having more HD than it's worth. Hill giants lack any special abilities besides rock throwing, and have average bab/saves. All of their benefits come from raw ability bonuses, which are nice and all, but they're just very simple creatures. As such, to make them a moderate challenge, they had to be given excessive HD, which is how you get a 12 HD CR8 enemy.

Again though, that's not a problem with the LA system, that's a problem with some monsters having inflated HD for their CR. If anything, that's more a problem with RHD being keyed directly to levels when it's a monster PC. There are however templates or monsters that are far more geared toward being a PC, especially if you adjust the LA to something more reasonable. Since you're specifically talking about LA here, the best adjudication would be to compare templated characters, or 0RHD +X LA races to 0LA untemplated characters and see how they hold up.

A simple first would be half dragon, because why not. Half dragon can be considered a martial template. In exchange for 3 levels, you get:
+8 str
+2 con
+2 int
+2 cha
A moderate breath weapon (1/day, but a single feat brings this to 1d4 round cooldown)
+4 natural armor
2 claws and a bite
Immunity to an energy type, as well as sleep and paralysis
Darkvision 60ft, and low-light vision
Dragon Type

Lets compare these to some classes that grant these things.

Dragon Shaman grants a breath weapon that takes 14 levels to get to 7d6 (rough equivilent to 6d8)
+8 strength is the equivilent of +4 to hit, as well as +6 extra damage while two handing. If have power attack, +6 damage is offset by +3 to hit, so in that sense +8 strength equals +7 to hit. 3LA would get you +3 bab, which admittedly does get you closer to an extra iterative.
Darkvision 60ft is 1/3rd of shadowdancer's 2nd level abilities, or about 1/2 of a horizon walker's 1st-5th level abilities when selecting underground as it's terrain for that level
+4 natural armor is similar to a monk's AC bonus if they have 18 wis, though the bonus doesn't apply to touch
+2 con gives you 17 extra hp at ECL 20, how much this matters depends greatly on your base con, but it's still something.
+2 int gives you an extra skill point a level, not 3 levels worth, but again, something.
The dragon type is roughly equivilent to a feat in the form of dragonwrought kobold, so you're getting your feat's worth from your 3LA
A few classes grant natural weapons as their class features
Immunity to an energy type is usually quite a deep class feature, generally prestige class capstones, so this is certainly worth a decent chunk.


Looking at it like that the half dragon isn't a terrible choice for a martial in exchange for 3 levels. The only thing that makes it such an infrequently used choice is because most games start at low levels, which is where +3 LA is most crippling, because you're so fragile, and at that level +2 con is barely giving you any hp, and since half dragon is an inherited template, you can't pick it up later on. Those two reasons are in fact the reason why most people never use LA. The obvious solution is clearly savage progressions, which solve these problems perfectly. You can pick up benefits at your own pace, and not have to worry about being burdened with all the LA at once, plus when you're getting the abilities at level up, it becomes much easier to properly see and understand LA as the "Class features without HD" that they are.

Admittedly, a lot of LA are waaayyy off, which is why the LA threads we have are a very useful resource, but as you said in your opening post, that's not the problem you have with them.

What you're basically saying is: I'm multiclassing on a caster and it's losing me caster levels, multiclassing sucks.

[Hish]

Seriously though, it's only an issue for casters. The saying goes linear fighters, quadratic wizards. Most mundane classes are taken with varying amounts of light dips, a few barbarian levels here, a couple of fighter levels there. When was the last time you've seen 10 levels of rogue for the rogue special abilities? I haven't seen one for a LONG time. Most monster chassis are about on par with mundanes, medium or good bab, one or two good saves, and somewhere between 2 and 6+int skills/level, so that's not a problem, and then if you look at monster abilities as "class features", many class features don't scale with hit dice, only class levels, so if you're dipping a lot, most class features suffer from this as well.

Damn, you beat me to it. I completely agree with this analysis.

I agree with Hackulator in that high levels can be equivalent to low levels, and I personally prefer it that way because it allows for unabashed multiclassing (I'm a big fan of multiclassing). But the problem only really comes in when some classes are linear and some quadratic. In linear systems, LA works well. In quadratic systems, LA is broken, but other forms of payment could work. Unfortunately, D&D is neither a linear nor quadratic system, so LA sometimes works and sometimes is broken, and there isn't much that could replace it.

Hill giant is a very bad example. It was built to be as strong as a 7th level character (CR 7), but must be played at level 12 (12 HD) even if they didn't choose its LA with a dartboard. They wanted it to have extra HP/Saves/BAB, but they could have just said "The hill giant gets 40 extra HP due to its size and durability."
EDIT: It could also be fixed by giving martials nice things and making them nicer without number inflation.

[Drakevarg]

Hill giant is a very bad example. It was built to be as strong as a 7th level character (CR 7), but must be played at level 12 (12 HD) even if they didn't choose its LA with a dartboard. They wanted it to have extra HP/Saves/BAB, but they could have just said "The hill giant gets 40 extra HP due to its size and durability."

That's why I floated the "LA would often be more balanced if it was reversed" opinion. ECL 8 probably wouldn't be wildly overpowered for a Hill Giant PC, and the race would become less and less significant as levels increased.

That said, my usual rule for monster races (besides a blanket "you can't play as anything I don't want in my setting," which is more a taste thing than a balance thing) is that RHD = ECL unless CR outstrips RHD, in which case CR = ECL. I can't think of a single situation where LA has felt even remotely accurate other than 0 RHD races and maybe templates.

[Cosi]

It sounds like you just don't like the chassis of 3.5. (Which is fair - I'm prefer the balance tweaks into Pathfinder, and even then it begins to fall apart past 10-12th level.)

I don't understand what you think you're identifying my problem as. In what sense is "how monsters as PCs work" part of the "chassis" of 3.5, particularly as contrasted with Pathfinder?


However, they can OUTDAMAGE a level 17 caster unless the caster has some amount of optimization that the DM shouldn't really allow if he's having both casters and martials in his party.

So why are those options in the game? Why is the optimal solution "casters, mundanes, and caster options that make mundanes cry"?


You're describing a system that's pretty close to 4e multiclassing. You can spend feats (which are more plentiful in 4e) to pick powers and class features from other classes. You can just 'dip' (which is very common) or go deeper into a class to get more abilities. And it's balanced, you don't slow down advancement in your primary class.

That doesn't really sound like what I'm proposing. The feat cost thing isn't something I'd support, because it makes it harder to do characters like "dual wielding gish" or whatever that are both multi-classed and specialized in feat-ish ways (or requires you do go full 4e and make weapon choice part of your class, which is bad). Also, once you've gone down the 4e path and given everyone the same resource management, the best way to do multi-classing is to just give people picks from other lists.


Agreed, if you set your baseline to casters, everything else is going to seem garbage by comparison.

3e is big enough that anywhere you set the baseline is going to end up excluding most of the game. If you pick the Bard as your baseline, you'll still end up excluding things like the Samurai and the Fighter, but now you'll also be excluding the Wizard and the Sorcerer. I don't think there's a good case that "full casters" is a meaningfully smaller playspace than any other comparably large power band, particularly after you make reasonable tweaks like "all caster PrCs are full casting".


On the other hand, some races have inflated HD for their CR, and even worse inflated LA ontop, such that they become unplayable, but that's not a problem with LA, that's a problem with the race having more HD than it's worth. Hill giants lack any special abilities besides rock throwing, and have average bab/saves. All of their benefits come from raw ability bonuses, which are nice and all, but they're just very simple creatures. As such, to make them a moderate challenge, they had to be given excessive HD, which is how you get a 12 HD CR8 enemy.

This is, of course, not actually true. Barbarians manage to be, at least notionally, effective bruisers at CR 7 off of 7 HD. Clearly, it's possible to do that. Doing it with the Hill Giant would just be a matter of cranking up its STR and CON scores, or maybe tweaking its BAB.


Looking at it like that the half dragon isn't a terrible choice for a martial in exchange for 3 levels.

You're missing the point. I agree that you can find three martial levels where that's a fair trade off. But even martials (except "literally the Fighter") are going to be behind by different amounts at different levels for taking a three-level hit. Imagine you have a Ranger who, instead of being a 9th level Ranger, is a 6th level Half Dragon Ranger. Right now, he's lost Woodland Stride, Swift Tracker, Evasion, and various minor things like spell slots, animal companion improvements, and chassis improvements. Maybe that's balanced, maybe it's not. Now imagine he's advanced to 12th level. Now he's losing Camouflage and his 4th Favored Enemy, plus a different set of minor stuff. So either those two sets of Ranger abilities are exactly the same amount of power, or the Ranger was underpowered or overpowered at some point from making this trade.


What you're basically saying is: I'm multiclassing on a caster and it's losing me caster levels, multiclassing sucks.

No, what I'm saying is that no class (except maybe the Fighter, and I guess some NPC classes) has the property that for every set of N consecutive levels in the class, the abilities gained over those levels are of equal value. Because that's the property you need for LA to work. Or the benefits need to be variable.

[Uckleverry]

That doesn't really sound like what I'm proposing. The feat cost thing isn't something I'd support, because it makes it harder to do characters like "dual wielding gish" or whatever that are both multi-classed and specialized in feat-ish ways (or requires you do go full 4e and make weapon choice part of your class, which is bad). Also, once you've gone down the 4e path and given everyone the same resource management, the best way to do multi-classing is to just give people picks from other lists.

But if you give 'free' picks from other classes, that dilutes class identity. If you want to go for a more point based character creation, sure, but D&D has always been a class-based game, and classes do need their own things. Could you imagine the cries of 'homogeneity' if 4e had done what you're proposing, considering that it's already one of the most common criticisms aimed at the system?

[Drakevarg]

You're missing the point. I agree that you can find three martial levels where that's a fair trade off. But even martials (except "literally the Fighter") are going to be behind by different amounts at different levels for taking a three-level hit. Imagine you have a Ranger who, instead of being a 9th level Ranger, is a 6th level Half Dragon Ranger. Right now, he's lost Woodland Stride, Swift Tracker, Evasion, and various minor things like spell slots, animal companion improvements, and chassis improvements. Maybe that's balanced, maybe it's not. Now imagine he's advanced to 12th level. Now he's losing Camouflage and his 4th Favored Enemy, plus a different set of minor stuff. So either those two sets of Ranger abilities are exactly the same amount of power, or the Ranger was underpowered or overpowered at some point from making this trade.

No, what I'm saying is that no class (except maybe the Fighter, and I guess some NPC classes) has the property that for every set of N consecutive levels in the class, the abilities gained over those levels are of equal value. Because that's the property you need for LA to work. Or the benefits need to be variable.

This argument strikes me as somewhat inane. Either every class is perfectly balanced at every level, or a broad value statement on what a level is "worth" is meaningless? Then either stop caring about balance or play something that doesn't use classes, because games like WoW have been trying to tweak that one out on a weekly balance for like 15 years and they have the benefit of not needing to run on dice and math you can do in your head.

[Cosi]

But if you give 'free' picks from other classes, that dilutes class identity. If you want to go for a more point based character creation, sure, but D&D has always been a class-based game, and classes do need their own things. Could you imagine the cries of 'homogeneity' if 4e had done what you're proposing, considering that it's already one of the most common criticisms aimed at the system?

4e made the decision to put everyone on At-Will/Encounter/Daily. If you're not going to use the interoperability that gives you, why are you doing it? Because the cost is that you've give up on a huge amount of the dynamism that exists between classes in 3e. Even if the abilities of a Warlock and a Warblade were functionally identical, they would play substantially differently because 3e went with different resource management systems for those classes.


This argument strikes me as somewhat inane. Either every class is perfectly balanced at every level, or a broad value statement on what a level is "worth" is meaningless?

I don't see where you got anything about intra-class balance out of that post.

But yes, unless all levels are equally valuable, you can't talk about the value of a level. If the abilities the 8th level of Ranger grants are different in power level from the abilities the 1st level of Ranger grants, clearly "a level" is not an objective measure. Obviously, as with any discussion of balance, there's some flexibility, but there's no indication that something like that was intended to be the paradigm at all.

[Crake]

You're missing the point. I agree that you can find three martial levels where that's a fair trade off. But even martials (except "literally the Fighter") are going to be behind by different amounts at different levels for taking a three-level hit. Imagine you have a Ranger who, instead of being a 9th level Ranger, is a 6th level Half Dragon Ranger. Right now, he's lost Woodland Stride, Swift Tracker, Evasion, and various minor things like spell slots, animal companion improvements, and chassis improvements. Maybe that's balanced, maybe it's not. Now imagine he's advanced to 12th level. Now he's losing Camouflage and his 4th Favored Enemy, plus a different set of minor stuff. So either those two sets of Ranger abilities are exactly the same amount of power, or the Ranger was underpowered or overpowered at some point from making this trade.

I don't believe I am at all. Sure you can go full ranger, but at the same time, you could also be going 3 levels into something else, like rogue for sneak attack, or fighter for more feats. Maybe you might even want to go into shadowdancer for a good hide in plain sight in one level, which makes camouflage and ranger's hide in plain sight completely redundant. You're literally just describing multiclassing.

[Drakevarg]

But yes, unless all levels are equally valuable, you can't talk about the value of a level. If the abilities the 8th level of Ranger grants are different in power level from the abilities the 1st level of Ranger grants, clearly "a level" is not an objective measure. Obviously, as with any discussion of balance, there's some flexibility, but there's no indication that something like that was intended to be the paradigm at all.

I think if they meant for levels to ramp up in power in a way that doesn't more-or-less level out over time, they would have either banned multiclassing entirely or made it actually easier than sticking with your current class, since it's less valuable than a new level in a class you already have. Unless they were simply operating out of severe ignorance of Grod's Law (which admittedly the way LA is used is a strong indicator of exactly that).

[CharonsHelper]

I think if they meant for levels to ramp up in power in a way that doesn't more-or-less level out over time, they would have either banned multiclassing entirely or made it actually easier than sticking with your current class, since it's less valuable than a new level in a class you already have.

You're sort of ignoring possibility of the combination of two classes' abilities are greater than the sum of their parts.

Even if the 6th level of class A is better than the first level, the first level of class B might mesh with class A such as to be as good or better than taking that sixth level of A.

[Cosi]

I don't believe I am at all. Sure you can go full ranger, but at the same time, you could also be going 3 levels into something else, like rogue for sneak attack, or fighter for more feats. Maybe you might even want to go into shadowdancer for a good hide in plain sight in one level, which makes camouflage and ranger's hide in plain sight completely redundant. You're literally just describing multiclassing.

That's not a response, that's just saying the phenomena generalizes. If you can trade A for B and C for B, either A has the same value as C or one of those trades is imbalanced. Do you have some point to dispute that?


I think if they meant for levels to ramp up in power in a way that doesn't more-or-less level out over time, they would have either banned multiclassing entirely or made it actually easier than sticking with your current class, since it's less valuable than a new level in a class you already have. Unless they were simply operating out of severe ignorance of Grod's Law (which admittedly the way LA is used is a strong indicator of exactly that).

I think this attitude gives too much credit to the devs. They made some mistakes of various magnitudes, particularly in terms of paradigms for different abilities. For example, feats range from fluff text (like Educated) to character defining (like Greenbound Summoning).

[Uckleverry]

4e made the decision to put everyone on At-Will/Encounter/Daily. If you're not going to use the interoperability that gives you, why are you doing it? Because the cost is that you've give up on a huge amount of the dynamism that exists between classes in 3e. Even if the abilities of a Warlock and a Warblade were functionally identical, they would play substantially differently because 3e went with different resource management systems for those classes..

Ok, but you're still diluting class identity if you give everyone free picks from other classes' abilities. At that point, what is a class anyway?

[Crake]

That's not a response, that's just saying the phenomena generalizes. If you can trade A for B and C for B, either A has the same value as C or one of those trades is imbalanced. Do you have some point to dispute that?

If the phenomenon generalizes from LA to class levels then it's not really a problem with LA, is it? Seems like you're refuting your own argument to me. Whether all of 3.5's classes are balanced, and whether multiclassing frontloaded classes is better than single classing is a completely different topic than "LA is broken because it requires trading off levels for other bonuses". My argument is that the benefits you get from LA translate in the same way as multiclassing. If you mutliclassed a wizard with a fighter (or hell, even a prc that doesn't advance full casting) then of course that wizard is going to be weaker than a straight wizard. The same applies to LA, because LA never gives caster levels. It honestly sounds like your beef is with multiclassing, becasue that's essentially what LA is. It's multiclassing, only you don't get HD with the virtual levels.

[Cosi]

Ok, but you're still diluting class identity if you give everyone free picks from other classes' abilities. At that point, what is a class anyway?

Putting everyone on the same resource management system inherently dilutes class identity. It's a choice that indicates a paradigm where classes don't define characters to a high degree. You can compensate by giving people things inherent to their class (like giving Paladins +1 to healing powers or whatever), but it's a choice that influences how the game works, like committing to bounded accuracy or random items.


If the phenomenon generalizes from LA to class levels then it's not really a problem with LA, is it? Seems like you're refuting your own argument to me. Whether all of 3.5's classes are balanced, and whether multiclassing frontloaded classes is better than single classing is a completely different topic than "LA is broken because it requires trading off levels for other bonuses". My argument is that the benefits you get from LA translate in the same way as multiclassing. If you mutliclassed a wizard with a fighter (or hell, even a prc that doesn't advance full casting) then of course that wizard is going to be weaker than a straight wizard. The same applies to LA, because LA never gives caster levels. It honestly sounds like your beef is with multiclassing, becasue that's essentially what LA is. It's multiclassing, only you don't get HD with the virtual levels.

LA is an example of a bigger problem. The fact that there are other examples refutes exactly none of my point, and causes me to wonder if you actually understand what a refutation is.

[Crake]

LA is an example of a bigger problem. The fact that there are other examples refutes exactly none of my point, and causes me to wonder if you actually understand what a refutation is.

This is what's called shifting the goal posts. Your original issue was specifically with LA, now you're saying there's a bigger problem that LA is merely an example of. That is what I'm pointing out. The very fact that you're saying that LA is merely an example of some other problem is an acceptance that LA is not the problem, it is a symptom of a different problem. You can't have it both ways.

[Cosi]

This is what's called shifting the goal posts. Your original issue was specifically with LA, now you're saying there's a bigger problem that LA is merely an example of. That is what I'm pointing out. The very fact that you're saying that LA is merely an example of some other problem is an acceptance that LA is not the problem, it is a symptom of a different problem. You can't have it both ways.

Of course, this result is more general. It suggests fundamental problems with the balance of PrCs that cost spellcaster levels, and with the multi-classing system. Those problems are real too, and the all stem from a fundamental misunderstanding of the cost of a level and the viability of balancing around that cost.

So, no, this is not a pivot. From the first post I made on this topic, I've said that there's a broader problem here -- {Scrubbed} I even said the multi-classing system was an example of the problem.

[Uckleverry]

Putting everyone on the same resource management system inherently dilutes class identity. It's a choice that indicates a paradigm where classes don't define characters to a high degree. You can compensate by giving people things inherent to their class (like giving Paladins +1 to healing powers or whatever), but it's a choice that influences how the game works, like committing to bounded accuracy or random items.

Right, and that's not really D&D, is it? If you combine unified resource management with free pickings of class abilities, you've moved to a very different game altogether. Classes are one of the essential features of D&D throughout the editions. You're proposing a system that's more or less point based and class-less.

[Cosi]

Right, and that's not really D&D, is it? If you combine unified resource management with free pickings of class abilities, you've moved to a very different game altogether. Classes are one of the essential features of D&D throughout the editions. You're proposing a system that's more or less point based and class-less.

I mean, sure, but not doing that just means you give up on meaningfully different characters and in exchange get nothing. The design choices 4e made already made it "not D&D" for anyone who was going to make that objection.

[Flickerdart]

This is why I really like Half-Fey and Phrenic. Not only do you gain more stuff as you level up, the stuff you gain might be more level-appropriate than your class abilities!

[VisitingDaGulag]

the numbers are wrong

levels aren't linear.

no amount of tweaking the numbers on LA can make monsters viableWell, you could shoot for the average. I won't demonstrate this below. I'm just sayin'.

Instead, a first level minotaur with free RHD is pretty kicking early. By level 19 after LA buyoff, he'll be about as powerful as 20th level character of the same total XP value gained. That didn't require much tweaking, did it? :smallsmile:

Unfortunately players are less likely to chose minotaurs as their one and only race choice/slot for their caster build, so he'll experience all the usual linear warrior quadratic wizard problems. That's the real problem, not the slight lag in XP.

[Uckleverry]

I mean, sure, but not doing that just means you give up on meaningfully different characters and in exchange get nothing. The design choices 4e made already made it "not D&D" for anyone who was going to make that objection.

There's a massive difference between your proposed solution and 4e, and that's class identity, and as much as it did slaughter sacred cows, 4e still retained classes. You're advocating a system where class loses its meaning, only because you want character building that gives as much freedom as possible.

4e has classes, robust multiclassing, and balanced characters. It has class identity, it allows for a wider variety of 'LA +0' races, and its multiclassing system lets you build more versatile characters without sacrificing meaningful advancement in your class abilities. It offers much of what your proposal has, but doesn't make the game into a completely different style of class-less RPG.

[Florian]

So, basically the only way "around this"(*) is making the old AD&D multiclassing or Gestalt rules the absolute baseline for the game, when the intention is to still keep it class based.

(*) With "this", I mean keeping casters at full power while multiclassing - Something I deem undesirable.

[Cosi]

Well, you could shoot for the average. I won't demonstrate this below. I'm just sayin'.

Yes, but that doesn't solve the balance problem. The balance is still off at every point where the value isn't the average.


There's a massive difference between your proposed solution and 4e, and that's class identity, and as much as it did slaughter sacred cows, 4e still retained classes. You're advocating a system where class loses its meaning, only because you want character building that gives as much freedom as possible.

This strikes me as a post hoc justification. Who was going to care if class distinctions were slightly weaker because you could pick up fireball as a Fighter, but didn't care about the huge weakening that came as a result of the At-Will/Encounter/Daily paradigm being universal? Why is this cow more sacred than the other ones 4e killed?


4e has classes, robust multiclassing, and balanced characters. It has class identity, it allows for a wider variety of 'LA +0' races, and its multiclassing system lets you build more versatile characters without sacrificing meaningful advancement in your class abilities. It offers much of what your proposal has, but doesn't make the game into a completely different style of class-less RPG.

I don't want to get into a 4e debate here, so let me say that while you are factually wrong (4e characters are not balanced, see Orbizards or Yogi Hat Rangers), you also miss that 4e is very bad. I quite agree that if 4e delivered on all the promises it made, it would be a great game. But it fails to do that, so it isn't. You should absolutely pilfer from the ideas 4e had, but the underlying mechanics of 3e are roughly a million times better at essentially everything.


With "this", I mean keeping casters at full power while multiclassing - Something I deem undesirable.

So should casters just not ever multi-class?

[Uckleverry]

This strikes me as a post hoc justification. Who was going to care if class distinctions were slightly weaker because you could pick up fireball as a Fighter, but didn't care about the huge weakening that came as a result of the At-Will/Encounter/Daily paradigm being universal? Why is this cow more sacred than the other ones 4e killed?

I don't want to get into a 4e debate here, so let me say that while you are factually wrong (4e characters are not balanced, see Orbizards or Yogi Hat Rangers), you also miss that 4e is very bad. I quite agree that if 4e delivered on all the promises it made, it would be a great game. But it fails to do that, so it isn't. You should absolutely pilfer from the ideas 4e had, but the underlying mechanics of 3e are roughly a million times better at essentially everything.

The problem here is that you simply don't understand 4e, you lack experience with the system. It's clear the way you talk about your proposed solution and how it would work, but at the same time you have no understanding of what 4e actually accomplishes with its multiclassing and hybrid classes. The examples of 'un-balanced' builds you gave are laughably weak compared to the worst of 3.5.

If you're into game design, it's useful to familiarize yourself with various systems (outside of D&D too). This LA revelation and how it interacts with classes and multiclassing isn't something new -- hence the "Welcome to 2008!" quip. The 3.5/Pathfinder chassis is over 15 years old by this point, and the rest of the industry has moved on and explored other ways to express character concepts, including monstrous races.

[Lans]

Yes, but that doesn't solve the balance problem. The balance is still off at every point where the value isn't the average.
?

What if I don't think the balance being off by a certain amount to be a problem?

[Crake]

So should casters just not ever multi-class?

If you want multiclassing casters, look at spheres of power?

The reason multiclassing casters in 3.5 is bad is because each class has it's own, typically different, casting advancement, while BAB is universal among melee classes. Spheres fixed this by having "base caster level" which stacks between classes, but at the same time, they don't use vancian casting. You could also look into how 5e handles multiclassing between casters.

Obviously though, if you're multiclassing between a caster and a non-caster, there's no way you could expect to keep up with a full caster, otherwise why would there be a benefit to single classing. The fact that being behind by 1 or 2 levels becomes a bigger and bigger gap as you get to higher and higher levels is more a problem with casters advancing at a quadratic rate, which is again, something that 5e fixed, so, I dunno, maybe you should think about trying out 5e?

[Cosi]

What if I don't think the balance being off by a certain amount to be a problem?

Well, sure. Obviously if you don't care about whatever the balance issue created by some problem is, you can safely ignore that problem. But that applies to every single balance issue (indeed, it applies to every possible balance issue). So it's not terribly relevant to the question of whether or not the balance issue exists.


If you want multiclassing casters, look at spheres of power?

Because Spheres of Power "fixes" casters by making them like mundanes, and mundanes are bad. I would rather fix mundanes by making them like casters, because casters are good. More specifically, it encourages a high level of specialization which makes for characters that are one-trick ponies. Also, I disapprove of the stance they've taken on "plot powers" like raise dead and teleport.


You could also look into how 5e handles multiclassing between casters.

5e is what you get if you observe that 3e basically works up to 6th level, then respond by cutting out everything above 6th level. Again, I like high levels, so that's not a good solution from my point of view. Also, E6 exists and does everything 5e does better and with more content.


Obviously though, if you're multiclassing between a caster and a non-caster, there's no way you could expect to keep up with a full caster, otherwise why would there be a benefit to single classing.

You're making some assumptions here. First, do you mean "keep up as a caster" or "keep up at all"? Because one of those is reasonable and one is not. Second, you're assuming the only cost you could pay for multi-classing from is class levels. This is clearly not the case, as 4e and PF have demonstrated in various ways.


The fact that being behind by 1 or 2 levels becomes a bigger and bigger gap as you get to higher and higher levels is more a problem with casters advancing at a quadratic rate, which is again, something that 5e fixed, so, I dunno, maybe you should think about trying out 5e?

5e didn't "fix" quadratic advancement, because it wasn't a problem. The problem is that the game is supposed to run from zero to hero, but if you don't get magic you're stuck at zero.

[Drakevarg]

Because Spheres of Power "fixes" casters by making them like mundanes, and mundanes are bad. I would rather fix mundanes by making them like casters, because casters are good. More specifically, it encourages a high level of specialization which makes for characters that are one-trick ponies. Also, I disapprove of the stance they've taken on "plot powers" like raise dead and teleport.

5e didn't "fix" quadratic advancement, because it wasn't a problem. The problem is that the game is supposed to run from zero to hero, but if you don't get magic you're stuck at zero.

Starting to seem like the entire crux of your argument is that anyone who doesn't want to be Doctor Strange or Superman is doing it wrong, despite all indications forward and backwards indicating that the developers never intended casters to get as powerful as they did, what with any intelligently-played high level caster basically throwing the CR system in the trash and lighting it on fire, and every edition before or since reigning them in a fair amount more.

So gee no wonder, when you look at things from the stance that the bug is optimal function, everything around it looks broken and backwards.

[zlefin]

Cosi did oyu try the system entitled "Legend"
you said you wanted martials to be more like casters, Ithink legend made some headways toward that. Not sure whatever happened to the system though, I remember the playtest a few years back, haven't heard about it since.

[Lans]

Well, sure. Obviously if you don't care about whatever the balance issue created by some problem is, you can safely ignore that problem. But that applies to every single balance issue (indeed, it applies to every possible balance issue). So it's not terribly relevant to the question of whether or not the balance issue exists.



Well the issue is you can't balance based around a fixed LA, and my counter is that you can get it close enough that it isn't broken, bent sure. Now the LAed creature might be over powered or underpowered compared to certain classes at certain levels, but thats true with the class system in general.

[Cosi]

Starting to seem like the entire crux of your argument is that anyone who doesn't want to be Doctor Strange or Superman is doing it wrong, despite all indications forward and backwards indicating that the developers never intended casters to get as powerful as they did, what with any intelligently-played high level caster basically throwing the CR system in the trash and lighting it on fire, and every edition before or since reigning them in a fair amount more.

I'm not opposed to people not playing Doctor Strange or Superman. Lots of good stories don't include Doctor Strange or Superman. What I'm opposed to is people saying those stories should be removed from the game because they don't want them. Because there are good stories that do include Doctor Strange or Superman.

The notion that casters are unintended powerful is bunk. Most high level monsters have a suite of SLAs, straight up casting, or both. The Trumpet Archon is a 14th level Cleric and also an archon. Good combat spells kept getting printed throughout the whole game. Things like planar binding are a little shakier, but the Fiend Binder showed up as late as Tome of Magic.

If you think casters trash the CR system, I invite you to prove it by showing off the least optimized Wizard build that can bat 80% on the 10th level SGT.

[Dagroth]

I forget - was it the ECL or actual level which had to be 3xLA before you could buy it off? If the former - then +2 could be reasonably bought off too.

Really though - the game was not designed for monstrous PCs. They were an afterthought of "wouldn't it be cool if...", and they generally erred on the side of making them weak (likely somewhat on purpose and for some of the same logic that martials are weak - they overestimated abilities which are always on vs spells).

If you integrated them into the system from the ground up you would likely make them levels with horrid HD to make up for all of their stats and/or abilities. But they would have to be designed as PC-able first and then added to the Monster Manual instead of the other way around.

Really though - it's the sort of thing which would be easier to integrate into a point-buy system. (now - point-buy systems have their own issues - but they are easier to integrate this sort of thing into)


Worse. Hd discounting rhd.

I have always ignored the "discounting RHD" rule for LA buy-off. It seems to punish unnecessarily.

That being said... many at my table generally like the "Bloodlines" rules in UA, and Savage Progression for LA is certainly more balanced in the long-run.

When you start talking about Monster HD, the biggest problem you have is that "not all HD are equal". 5 Dragon HD are ridiculously better than 5 Giant HD. In fact, Dragon & Outsider HD are generally good enough to be worthwhile compared to Fighter Levels or Rogue-ish levels. When combined with ability score bonuses & special qualities, they balance out well compared to mundanes.


First, I don't think traditional open multi-classing works at all (assuming you want characters to be balanced). Getting it to work requires, I think, essentially abandoning the notion of "class" as a thing. Instead just give people abilities to pick, and let all of those abilities scale. That's workable, and you can hack classes to kind of work like that in various ways if you're super attached to the idea of having Fighters and Wizards instead of "people with Cleave" and "people with fireball". It does make multiple resource management systems structurally unworkable, which is a non-trivial cost.

Second, I don't think you can actually give up on multi-classing entirely. People will want to be Thief/Mages or Paladin/Druids or whatever. Some of that is because you will have niches that aren't filled yet (for example, it took several years for 3e to get a class who could do "swords" and "arcane magic" from 1st level). But some of it is also because people simply want to do things that are weird and different. There are people out there who want to be a Psion/Artificer because there isn't a Psion/Artificer base class, and if you can do so reasonably easily there's no reason not to oblige them.

Considering those two, you need to find something that feels like multi-classing, but isn't "put a bunch of levels in a pile and hope it is somehow not terrible". You could put everyone on the same (or a very similar) resource management system and let people get some number of picks from other classes -- this is what 4e should have done. You could make everyone Gestalt automatically, but that makes balancing things horrifying (also, it makes DMing for encounters with multiple PC-level threats a nightmare). My favored solution is to give people a subclass. You make a Wizard, and then if you want to do a Rage Mage you take the Barbarian subclass. If you want to do a Mystic Theurge instead, take the Cleric subclass. If you just want More Magic you can either take the Sorcerer subclass or maybe the Wizard subclass.

That system has the benefit of being extensible pretty easily to monsters too. You figure out what kind of class a Solar is (probably Cleric or Paladin) then you write an "Angel" subclass so the Solar is just 20th level Paladin/Angel. You can also do this for concepts that might not carry a whole class on their own, like "Gladiator" or "Noble".

Sure. But why should that be done through open multi-classing?

The reason to have high level abilities be better than low level ones is so that you can have zero-to-hero stories. Those require that characters start out with abilities dramatically more limited than the ones they finish with. You can't do Wheel of Time if all Rand is allowed to do is get new abilities that are roughly as good as his existing ones.

Why don't we unpack and examine those problems so every DM who wants to support a minotaur PC isn't asked to solve the same problem?

Long quote by Cosi that I want to answer succinctly.

If more PrCs were like Ultimate Magus or the other "Theurge-type" PrCs, but without the heavy multiclass requirements... and with slightly weaker side benefits... you'd have what you're looking for.

Example: If "Mystic Theurge" just required "Cast 3rd level Arcane Spells" and gave full arcane casting progression, while adding a "Domain of your Deity" with the ability to cast each of the spells in said domain once per day (up to the highest level of Arcane spells you can currently cast) every 3 levels, you'd get what you're looking for. Let's say a Wizard 5 goes into this class. At Wiz-5/MT-1, he picks "Healing Domain". He can now cast the 1st, 2nd & 3rd level spells of the Healing Domain once per day each. At Wiz-5/MT-4, he picks "War Domain". He can now cast the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th & 5th level spells of the Healing & War Domains once per day each.

Yes, not a huge improvement over Wiz-9, but a Wiz-3/Clr-3/MT-3 (no early entry) is only casting 3rd level spells by comparison.

PrCs should focus a characters' strengths or broaden their capabilities... not both at the same time.

Otherwise, you might as well just play Gestalt rules.

The real problem with Mundane classes is that there just aren't really notable scaling benefits with the classes. Sure, the "Weapon Supremacy" Feat sounds cool... but then you look at what it requires and what little benefit it gives. Many "Fighter Bonus Feats" should be baked in to the class (and some other classes) in addition to the regular bonus feats, much like the bonus feats given to Rangers & Monks.

But I'm getting off-track. If you use intelligent LA buy-off & Savage Progression, then you can solve much of the LA problem.

The "Not all RHD are anywhere near equivalent" problem... that's not nearly so easy to fix.


This is why I really like Half-Fey and Phrenic. Not only do you gain more stuff as you level up, the stuff you gain might be more level-appropriate than your class abilities!

Half-Celestial/Half-Fiend are the same, just much higher LA. One images that they'd be balanced down a little if they were introduced around the same time as Phrenic.

[Beheld]

what with any intelligently-played high level caster basically throwing the CR system in the trash and lighting it on fire

Did someone say my name three times while looking into a Mirror?

[Lans]

@ Cosi, what level of unbalance do you think is tolerable? The general balance frame that I hear is with in 2 tiers of each other, so barbarian, sorcerer, beguiler, favored soul.