The LA-assignment thread -0: Inevitably rejected: Redux [Archive]

martixy

2019-02-22, 02:46 AM

There's the LA-assignment threads and we all know what those are about.

(The LA-assignment archive) (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?518086-The-LA-assignment-archive&p=21798987) if you don't

Due to the nature of the HD system in D&D however, we frequently end up with monsters that are too weak even with 0 LA. Or LA-0 in the other thread's parlance. That means there has to be some other kind of ECL reduction to make these creatures competitive, and the only thing left to reduce is the RHD they possess.

This thread will do this. It is complimentary to the other threads.

We'll only we be looking at monsters classified at as LA-0. I won't bother with derived/advanced creatures - e.g. the bigger arrow hawks or the abyssal basilisk (which is just the normal one, with the fiendish template) - the point is to REDUCE RHD to playable levels, not further do yourself in by increasing them. Unless you want to. More power to you.
The recommendation here is to just play the lowest viable version (so for the Arrow Hawk for example, just play the juvenile).

All listed stats will be based on a "virtual size category" of Medium, as I use the standard monster size increase bonuses as sort of a standard +1.
I.e. if a large creature is 20 Strength, then it's effectively +2 Str - it's largness will be +1 and only that +2 will factor into additional considerations for increasing its ECL.

Additional notes (other tweaks you might make to adapt creatures further):
1. There is a case to be made for "de-advancing" monsters - extrapolating a monster's advancement backwards, with regards to size. E.g. a monster that's large by default and can be advanced to huge, might also be de-advanced to medium at lower-than-default HD. There is no good benchmark at what threshold that should happen, use your own judgement. If you determine that a creature deserves a size reduction, you can use the tables provided here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/improvingMonsters.htm#sizeIncreases) to calculate its change in statistics.
The general advice is to remove 1 ECL from the estimated ECL we have here for each category the creature loses.
2. There is also a school of thought here, in replacing a certain amount of RHD with LA, for buy-off friendly games. But that determination will be left to the reader.

(Thread name stolen from GreatWyrmGold. A pun on the fact that we're dealing with the rejects from the original threads, started by user Inevitability. Welcoming other suggestions.)

Monster name
Estimated LA
Estimated ECL
RHD Adjustment

Animated Object, Large (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=20734406&postcount=45)
-0
3
-1

Animated Object, Huge (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=20734406&postcount=45)
-0
4
-4

Animated Object, Gargantuan (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=20734406&postcount=45)
-0
5
-11

Animated Object, Colossal (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=20734406&postcount=45)
-0
6
-25

Athach (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=20803341&postcount=69)
-0
4
-10

Belker (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=20871110&postcount=85)
-0
4
-10

Bugbear (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=20889732&postcount=96)
+1
2
-3

Chaos Beast (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=20942418&postcount=129)
0
3
-5

Chuul (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=20968935&postcount=140)
0
5
-6

martixy

2019-02-22, 02:47 AM

Reserved 1

martixy

2019-02-22, 02:48 AM

Reserved 2, just in case.

martixy

2019-02-22, 02:49 AM

Animated Objects (Large to Colossal) (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=20734406&postcount=45)

Animated objects are constructs and so have some nice immunities and all that jazz. That said, it's the type, not the RHD that does things, and those get quickly overshadowed at higher ECL.

Besides, large sizes begin running into different problems when played into actual campaigns - such as their ability to enter enclosed spaces like dungeons and buildings, which is impossible to quantify here.

I'll do Animated objects, just as an example, so you know how the ECL estimation method works:

1. The highest playable example we have is Medium, which is 2 RHD and +0 LA. So we have a base ECL of 2.
2. Size category increases are +1. Therefore for large we end up with at least ECL 3. However +1 construct RHD isn't enough to push us any higher (remember, they're among the lowest tier HD - 4HD per CR increase). So we end up with 3 RHD at best (-1 from the listed).
3. For huge we're looking at ECL 4 at least. Again, extra RHD isn't enough to push us even higher, therefore we remain at 4 ECL, or -4 RHD from the listed.
4. Similar for Gargantuan an Colossal.

Large: -1 RHD [ECL 3]
Huge: -4 RHD [ECL 4]
Gargantuan: -11 HD [ECL 5]
Colossal: -25 HD [ECL 6]

martixy

2019-02-22, 02:51 AM

Athach (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=20803341&postcount=69)

Let's see.
Huge
Str +0, Dex +6, Con +2, Int -4, Wis +2, Cha -4
Nat AC +3
(Excluding size adjustments)
+1 hand and a bite attack
Poison Attack

Decidedly unimpressive. Just a bag of HP.
3rd hand does open up multiweapon fighting, but that's just more of the same. MWF isn't even a bonus feat.

2 size categories for +2 ECL, the abilities are probably worth another +1, barely, hand, bite and poison for another +1 and RHD for the last one for a total of 5 ECL, or -9 RHD.

Verdict: -10 RHD [4 ECL]

OgresAreCute

2019-02-22, 05:10 AM

Athach (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=20803341&postcount=69)

Let's see.
Huge
Str +0, Dex +6, Con +2, Int -2, Wis +2, Cha -4
Nat AC +3
(Excluding size adjustments)
+1 hand and a bite attack
Poison Attack

Decidedly unimpressive. Just a bag of HP.
3rd hand does open up multiweapon fighting, but that's just more of the same. MWF isn't even a bonus feat.

2 size categories for +2 ECL, the abilities are probably worth another +1, barely, hand, bite and poison for another +1 and RHD for the last one for a total of 5 ECL, or -9 RHD.

Verdict: (Awaiting input...)

There's no such thing as "size adjustments". You only use those when advancing a creature by hit dice so much its size increases (for example, the black pudding has 10 HD and is huge size, if you advanced it by 6 more HD it would become gargantuan and gain +8 STR, +4 CON and +4 natural armor).

That is to say, the Athach has +16 Racial strength, not +0.

martixy

2019-02-22, 05:26 AM

There's no such thing as "size adjustments". You only use those when advancing a creature by hit dice so much its size increases (for example, the black pudding has 10 HD and is huge size, if you advanced it by 6 more HD it would become gargantuan and gain +8 STR, +4 CON and +4 natural armor).

That is to say, the Athach has +16 Racial strength, not +0.

It's an abstraction, to help break down and assess things.
There are also no medium size Athaches either.

GreatWyrmGold

2019-02-22, 10:29 AM

...or the abyssal basilisk (which is just the normal one, with the fiendish template)...
Also some extra RHD, hence "greater".

1. The highest playable example we have is Medium, which is 2 RHD and +0 LA. So we have a base ECL of 2.
2. Size category increases are +1. Therefore for large we end up with at least ECL 3. However +1 construct RHD isn't enough to push us any higher (remember, they're among the lowest tier HD - 4HD per CR increase). So we end up with 3 RHD at best (-1 from the listed).
3. For huge we're looking at ECL 4 at least. Again, extra RHD isn't enough to push us even higher, therefore we remain at 4 ECL, or -4 RHD from the listed.
4. Similar for Gargantuan an Colossal.
Huh, interesting methodology.

2 size categories for +2 ECL, the abilities are probably worth another +1, barely, hand, bite and poison for another +1 and RHD for the last one for a total of 5 ECL, or -9 RHD.
I don't know how much I like going purely by "This ability is worth this many levels of class features" without the slightest reference to what those characters could accomplish, and I'm definitely not a fan of disregarding "size bonuses" to attributes. +8 Strength is +8 Strength, whatever your size category.

martixy

2019-02-22, 11:05 AM

I don't know how much I like going purely by "This ability is worth this many levels of class features" without the slightest reference to what those characters could accomplish, and I'm definitely not a fan of disregarding "size bonuses" to attributes. +8 Strength is +8 Strength, whatever your size category.

Well we do need some kind of standard measuring stick. I'm open to suggestions, but for my part, that's the best method I could come up.

Also, I have no clue what you mean by "disregarding "size bonuses" to attributes".

Segev

2019-02-22, 11:07 AM

Zaq

2019-02-22, 11:18 AM

I approve of this thread and its mission.

However, I’m pretty confused as to its methodology.

I think we need to be really explicit about exactly what assumptions are being made, especially with regard to size and also with regard to ability mods. I read your explanation, but it was not easy to follow, and I’m not convinced I’m on the same page as you. Can you perhaps go through that in a bit more detail, including a clearer explanation of exactly what you’re doing and why you’re doing it? Are we making all of these critters Medium or something? How exactly are you recalculating the stat mods and any other numbers?

Remember, there’s a ton of chatter and discussion in this kind of thread, especially if it gets off the ground. If I don’t get it, it’s likely that other folks will also be confused, and maybe not even in the same way! The assumptions and methodology need to be as clear as possible from the get-go to make sure that as many participants as possible are able to have a useful discussion with one another.

martixy

2019-02-22, 11:23 AM

To make sure I understand the goal of this thread, what we're doing is determining a "fair" ECL for the monster to be played at, with RHD being removed to reduce its assessed LA+RHD to this ECL?

I think a first step would be to determine, then, how many class hit dice a given kind of RHD is. For instance, is a dragon HD (d12, full BAB, all good saves, some tie-in to breath weapon saves in many cases) worth a full Fighter HD? A full Wizard HD? Half a Cleric HD? Three-quarters of a Rogue HD?

The point being, if we're stripping off RHD to reduce ECL down to a "reasonable" level for a playable version of the creature, we should determine just how much ECL is really being stripped by the RHD. If we make the assumption that is standard - that RHD are worth a level each - we're already shooting ourselves in the foot, because if that were the case, playing them at the ECL required by their RHD+LA would be totally fair.

I kinda already described that implicitly.

I'm going off by this table here:
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/improvingMonsters.htm

I'll give an example:
So, we figure how much ECL the abilities alone are worth. Let's say 4.
That means we end up with a creature of minimum 4 RHD.
Of those HD are aberration, 4 of them are equal to 1 extra ECL, so we add one more RHD, for a total of 5.
Now, if those HD are dragon - which are the strong ones, we'd add 2 HD. Except now those 2 HD are not accounted for in our ECL assessment, so we do that again - every 2 dragon HD are +1 ECL, so we add an extra ECL on top, and we're done - ending up with ECL 7.
It's kind of a recursive process.

I approve of this thread and its mission.

However, I’m pretty confused as to its methodology.

I think we need to be really explicit about exactly what assumptions are being made, especially with regard to size and also with regard to ability mods. I read your explanation, but it was not easy to follow, and I’m not convinced I’m on the same page as you. Can you perhaps go through that in a bit more detail, including a clearer explanation of exactly what you’re doing and why you’re doing it? Are we making all of these critters Medium or something? How exactly are you recalculating the stat mods and any other numbers?

Remember, there’s a ton of chatter and discussion in this kind of thread, especially if it gets off the ground. If I don’t get it, it’s likely that other folks will also be confused, and maybe not even in the same way! The assumptions and methodology need to be as clear as possible from the get-go to make sure that as many participants as possible are able to have a useful discussion with one another.

We're not making the critters medium, I'm just using size increase bonuses as a kind of "standard measuring stick", aiming for somewhere around mid-optimization levels to break down a creature's bonuses and abilities into more easy to assess chunks.

liquidformat

2019-02-22, 11:24 AM

So an interesting thing I saw a couple weeks ago (can't find thread) was the idea of size increase also changing hit dice as a way to adjust hd bloat for larger than medium creatures. I think from an RHD reduction point of view for to make monsters more playable this is a decent adjustment.
In the case of Athach we end up with the following: 14d8+70 turns to x*(3d6)+5x=126 getting x(rhd)=9 which is a more reasonable level.

Comments on this method:
- Since it is purely based on increasing hp/rhd it 'weights' the monster type, ie dragons should have a larger reduction then fey.
- This method doesn't play nicely with iterative monsters like dragons since increasing size catagory could end up with an rhd reduction.

I kinda already described that implicitly.

I'm going off by this table here:
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/improvingMonsters.htm

I'll give an example:
So, we figure how much ECL the abilities alone are worth. Let's say 4.
That means we end up with a creature of minimum 4 RHD.
Of those HD are aberration, 4 of them are equal to 1 extra ECL, so we add one more RHD, for a total of 5.
Now, if those HD are dragon - which are the strong ones, we'd add 2 HD. Except now those 2 HD are not accounted for in our ECL assessment, so we do that again - every 2 dragon HD are +1 ECL, so we add an extra ECL on top, and we're done - ending up with ECL 7.
It's kind of a recursive process.

We're not making the critters medium, I'm just using size increase bonuses as a kind of "standard measuring stick", aiming for somewhere around mid-optimization levels to break down a creature's bonuses and abilities into more easy to assess chunks.

The issue is you are hand waving what an ability is worth key issue is the 'let's say 4' it is ambiguous how we got to 4 or where it came from... Why are 4 aberration rhd worth an extra ecl, why are 4 dragon rhd worth 2? This doesn't make any sense and isn't grounded in anything. We need a starting point.

GreatWyrmGold

2019-02-22, 11:39 AM

Well we do need some kind of standard measuring stick. I'm open to suggestions, but for my part, that's the best method I could come up.

Also, I have no clue what you mean by "disregarding "size bonuses" to attributes".
1. What's wrong with comparing the monsters to actual potential characters, instead of using some bastract, arbitrary set of numbers?
2.
Str +0, Dex +6, Con +2, Int -2, Wis +2, Cha -4
(Excluding size adjustments)
Athatches don't get size adjustments. They aren't medium creatures, advanced to huge size. They are huge creatures. The athatch gets an extra 16 points of Strength, regardless of how "typical" that is for something its size.

Segev

2019-02-22, 11:50 AM

I kinda already described that implicitly.

I'm going off by this table here:
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/improvingMonsters.htm

I'll give an example:
So, we figure how much ECL the abilities alone are worth. Let's say 4.
That means we end up with a creature of minimum 4 RHD.
Of those HD are aberration, 4 of them are equal to 1 extra ECL, so we add one more RHD, for a total of 5.
Now, if those HD are dragon - which are the strong ones, we'd add 2 HD. Except now those 2 HD are not accounted for in our ECL assessment, so we do that again - every 2 dragon HD are +1 ECL, so we add an extra ECL on top, and we're done - ending up with ECL 7.
It's kind of a recursive process.
Okay, that example helps. So the goal is ECL = RHD at the end of the exercise?

I will ignore the discussion over the transformation of the Athatch to Medium in this thread so far, and focus on the numbers as written: if I understand this correctly, then, a 5 HD Athatch is a 5 ECL character with LA+0, by this formulation. Is that right?

martixy

2019-02-22, 11:53 AM

The issue is you are hand waving what an ability is worth key issue is the 'let's say 4' it is ambiguous how we got to 4 or where it came from... Why are 4 aberration rhd worth an extra ecl, why are 4 dragon rhd worth 2? This doesn't make any sense and isn't grounded in anything. We need a starting point.

Oh come on... the "grounding" is literally linked 2 lines above that example!

1. What's wrong with comparing the monsters to actual potential characters, instead of using some abstract, arbitrary set of numbers?
2.
Athatches don't get size adjustments. They aren't medium creatures, advanced to huge size. They are huge creatures. The athatch gets an extra 16 points of Strength, regardless of how "typical" that is for something its size.

1. Nothing at all. But creatures are frequently a combo between random abilities and abstract sets of numbers, and I've decided to compare abstract sets of numbers to other abstract sets of numbers. You know, apples to apples. For the abilities, things are more ambiguous.
2. I feel like I'm repeating myself (because I am), but this is just a tool used to break down the monster into easier to quantify chunks. I'm not making Athatches medium and I'm not saying anything about racial bonuses and the like.

Okay, that example helps. So the goal is ECL = RHD at the end of the exercise?

I will ignore the discussion over the transformation of the Athatch to Medium in this thread so far, and focus on the numbers as written: if I understand this correctly, then, a 5 HD Athatch is a 5 ECL character with LA+0, by this formulation. Is that right?

Correct. Its about finding that balance point where a creature with X RHD + its innate abilities is ECL X.

Segev

2019-02-22, 12:01 PM

2. I feel like I'm repeating myself (because I am), by this is just a tool used to break down the monster into easier to quantify chunks. I'm not making Athatches medium and I'm not saying anything about racial bonuses and the like.This is less than clear in your Athatch analysis. Are you saying "Large or larger is worth +1 ECL, so any creature - including the Athatch - that is at least Large size gets an automatic +1?"

Correct. Its about finding that balance point where a creature with X RHD + its innate abilities is ECL X.A good goal. Is the reason you don't follow this procedure with LA > 0 creatures to minimize the level-of-entry for playable creatures (since adding RHD to them would also push the ECL higher)?

liquidformat

2019-02-22, 12:06 PM

Oh come on... the "grounding" is literally linked 2 lines above that example!

When I say grounding I don't mean stating 'a size increase is worth 1 ecl', 'barely, hand, bite and poison for another +1', 'having 4 aberrant rhd is worth another rhd'. I mean creating a base line case of why being large is worth 1 ecl, being huge is another, and so on; why having 4 aberrant rhd is worth enough to add another on (that concept in and of itself doesn't make any sense; these rhd are so powerful I should give another for good measure!); why is having a bite with a rider + an extra hand worth an ecl what are we comparing this to to make that determination?

Do you see what I mean by this needs to be grounded. You are going full tilt into analysis without explaining first how you are coming up with your base system for the analysis that is an issue. How are we supposed to understand what you are doing much less comment on it if we don't understand where you are pulling numbers from....

Segev

2019-02-22, 12:08 PM

When I say grounding I don't mean stating 'a size increase is worth 1 ecl', 'barely, hand, bite and poison for another +1', 'having 4 aberrant rhd is worth another rhd'. I mean creating a base line case of why being large is worth 1 ecl, being huge is another, and so on; why having 4 aberrant rhd is worth enough to add another on (that concept in and of itself doesn't make any sense; these rhd are so powerful I should give another for good measure!); why is having a bite with a rider + an extra hand worth an ecl what are we comparing this to to make that determination?

Do you see what I mean by this needs to be grounded. You are going full tilt into analysis without explaining first how you are coming up with your base system for the analysis that is an issue. How are we supposed to understand what you are doing much less comment on it if we don't understand where you are pulling numbers from....

It's in a table about 3/4 the way down this page, which he linked in response to me: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/improvingMonsters.htm

liquidformat

2019-02-22, 12:25 PM

It's in a table about 3/4 the way down this page, which he linked in response to me: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/improvingMonsters.htm

I understood just fine that aberrant rhd/4= cr or dragon rhd/2 = cr; I am not understanding the jump to I have 4 abarret rhd so I need to add another to balance the number of RHD. Simply linking to the monster advancement srd does little to explain the case for any of the assertions that have been made.

martixy

2019-02-22, 12:25 PM

This is less than clear in your Athatch analysis. Are you saying "Large or larger is worth +1 ECL, so any creature - including the Athatch - that is at least Large size gets an automatic +1?"
I suppose that's true. The general idea is turn any larger creatures into "virtually medium", stripping the size increases into easy to quantify chunks of +1, then seeing what's left. Some creatures might be left with large ability bonuses which warrant further ECL increases on their own, some might end up with negatives, weighing ECL downwards.

A good goal. Is the reason you don't follow this procedure with LA > 0 creatures to minimize the level-of-entry for playable creatures (since adding RHD to them would also push the ECL higher)?
What do you mean? The other LA threads are maintained by Inevitability. The problem there is, they stop essentially halfway through the process - dealing only with LA, which is only half (or even a third) of what constitutes a creature's ECL. And it's ECL, the whole package, which determines a creature's playability and relative competitiveness.

So I decided to take up the other half of the process, for creatures that need not only LA adjustments, but also RHD adjustment.
Don't know if Inevitability has a process and what it is, but I decided I needed something more consistent than gut feeling, that's the preliminary results of that effort.
Granted, poor, poor explanation (I suck at those, it's a character flawnot sure what feat I got for that one), but we're slowly getting past that hurdle too.

When I say grounding I don't mean stating 'a size increase is worth 1 ecl', 'barely, hand, bite and poison for another +1', 'having 4 aberrant rhd is worth another rhd'. I mean creating a base line case of why being large is worth 1 ecl, being huge is another, and so on; why having 4 aberrant rhd is worth enough to add another on (that concept in and of itself doesn't make any sense; these rhd are so powerful I should give another for good measure!); why is having a bite with a rider + an extra hand worth an ecl what are we comparing this to to make that determination?

Do you see what I mean by this needs to be grounded. You are going full tilt into analysis without explaining first how you are coming up with your base system for the analysis that is an issue. How are we supposed to understand what you are doing much less comment on it if we don't understand where you are pulling numbers from....

As noted, table.
As for size increases = 1 ecl - Well, there's the half-minotaur template, which is LA+1, gives a size increase + extra stuff (mostly some additional abilities) and is usually considered super cheesey. And most times, when it's discussed, the following thought crops up "usually just the size increase is worth +1". With which I tend to agree. That template is quite strong for +1. It's probably okay in high-op games. For a more middle of the road power-level, just the size increase fits perfectly for a +1.
For the hand, well... I was thinking along the lines of Pathfinder's Race Point system (which, I know, is not the most reliable justification, but it's better than nothing). A normal race of 1 ECL is 10 RP. Extra hand is 4 RP, bite is 2 RP, poison is 1 RP = 7 RP, most of the way to a +1. Admittedly somewhat conservative in this case, but that's how rounding works.

I understood just find that aberrant rhd/4= cr or dragon rhd/2 = cr I am not understanding the jump to I have 4 abbarent rhd so I need to add another to balance the number of RHD. Simply linking to the monster advancement srd does little to explain the case for any of the assertions that have been made.

The jump is: Say we have a creature whose innate abilities are 4 ECL worth.
That's 4 ECL in a vacuum. Also called Level Adjustment. We are playing with RHD, which add more on top of that. They have to be accounted for, and are, at the going rate described in that table.

Segev

2019-02-22, 12:47 PM

liquidformat

2019-02-22, 12:51 PM

[CENTER][SIZE=4]The jump is: Say we have a creature whose innate abilities are 4 ECL worth.
That's 4 ECL in a vacuum. Also called Level Adjustment. We are playing with RHD, which add more on top of that. They have to be accounted for, and are, at the going rate described in that table.
First off you have gotten the int wrong it is -4 not -2; so total ability scores end up +2 after being adjusted to medium which isn't worth a +1 ecl.

Second, I can get behind +1 for large size though we should be looking at half ogre, half giant, goliath, and water orc for our comparison point to validate that yes this is a +1 ecl. Though I am not 100% sure this should be a linear progression of ecl from medium to colossal...

Lastly is the going rate idea of monster hd, the IM to CR chart says aberration rhd are so bad it takes 4 of them to be equivalent to 1 class level; most likely the bar for this class level was a fighter to boot. So to put it another way that means 1 tier 4-5 class level is worth 4 aberration rhd, that seems to say if we add up all the goodies this monster gets and it is equal to the bar of 4 aberration rhd = 1 tier 4-5 class level we should have it correctly balanced. What you are saying is it is too strong push it into tier 6 or 7 with another rhd.

Doug Lampert

2019-02-22, 01:08 PM

To my mind, if you are going to do this, I agree that what you need to do is back out something as the problem is otherwise too painful. But size is the wrong thing, +to size is worth a lot more to a melee brute than a caster or skillmonkey. Treating all size as +1 per above a medium baseline is just not accurate. [Yes, the monster manual does that, the monster manual was written by the same people who thought the attach was LA +5, we're rejecting their judgement as totally wrong when we start this exercise.] Similar comment for their HD valuations. They're wrong.

Try it this way. Imagine a ZERO racial HD attach:

Huge aberration with 50' move.
+8 natural armor
3 arms plus a bite, and the bite does strength damage via poison
+16 str, +2 dex, +10 con, -4 int, +2 wis, -4 cha

Nothing else other than stuff that comes with the aberation type.

That's pretty much all good. How many aberration RHD would you be willing to take to get to play this thing?

That's the question under examination given the definition of -LA values being used.

You're going to dip barbarian for pounce and take multiattack and get elite abilities and PC gear to stack with the already good physical stats. That's the build. How many aberration HD will your melee brute be willing to take to get the goodies on his multiattack pounce build?

I'm tempted by 8, but that's just a gut feeling. I don't play 3.5 anymore, and I never played ToB melee builds. But that's the question you're answering here, not "how good would this be if medium", but "how good would this be if fewer aberration HD", start with the minimum (aka zero), make sure it's worth it at that level (yes, very much so), and work up.

OgresAreCute

2019-02-22, 01:12 PM

martixy

2019-02-22, 01:14 PM

If you just go by the table you have there, any size increase over Medium is a flat +1. So large, huge, or even collossal, is only +1 CR.

Anything over +4 str with -2 dex should be separately adjudicated for LA purposes.

However, if you're going to use Inevitability's threads as a guide, you can start with his LAs, and then all you have to worry about is the RHD adjustments.

Mostly, yes.

And I do start with his LA. More precisely all instances where his LA is -0, and additional adjustment to RHD is needed.

First off you have gotten the int wrong it is -4 not -2; so total ability scores end up +2 after being adjusted to medium which isn't worth a +1 ecl.

Second, I can get behind +1 for large size though we should be looking at half ogre, half giant, goliath, and water orc for our comparison point to validate that yes this is a +1 ecl. Though I am not 100% sure this should be a linear progression of ecl from medium to colossal...

Lastly is the going rate idea of monster hd, the IM to CR chart says aberration rhd are so bad it takes 4 of them to be equivalent to 1 class level; most likely the bar for this class level was a fighter to boot. So to put it another way that means 1 tier 4-5 class level is worth 4 aberration rhd, that seems to say if we add up all the goodies this monster gets and it is equal to the bar of 4 aberration rhd = 1 tier 4-5 class level we should have it correctly balanced. What you are saying is it is too strong push it into tier 6 or 7 with another rhd.

There's a breakdown of communication happening here. Punctuation bad, semantics unclear. I have no idea what's going on.

liquidformat

2019-02-22, 01:31 PM

Mostly, yes.

And I do start with his LA. More precisely all instances where his LA is -0, and additional adjustment to RHD is needed.

There's a breakdown of communication happening here. Punctuation bad, semantics unclear. I have no idea what's going on.
Comment one, you screwed up on the int mod it should be -4 not -2. If you adjust the athach to medium and sum its ability scores we end up with +2 and +3 NA, IMO that isn't worth a a class level.

Comment 2, I think 1 level seems reasonable for a size increase to large, though we as a thread should compare that to some +0,+1, and +2 LA races to verify. Beyond Large I am not comfortable with the blanket statement that each size increase is another ECL, we should similarly verify what it should be.

lastly, according to that link 4 aberration RHD = 1 class level, this standard was most likely based on a fighter so somewhere between tier 4-5 for optimization level. Given that logic if all the abilities an aberration possess is equivalent to 4 ECL then we do not need to add another RHD for balance, and doing so makes us worse than a tier 4-5 balance point.

Is that clear enough for you?

martixy

2019-02-22, 01:55 PM

Comment one, you screwed up on the int mod it should be -4 not -2. If you adjust the athach to medium and sum its ability scores we end up with +2 and +3 NA, IMO that isn't worth a a class level.

Comment 2, I think 1 level seems reasonable for a size increase to large, though we as a thread should compare that to some +0,+1, and +2 LA races to verify. Beyond Large I am not comfortable with the blanket statement that each size increase is another ECL, we should similarly verify what it should be.

lastly, according to that link 4 aberration RHD = 1 class level, this standard was most likely based on a fighter so somewhere between tier 4-5 for optimization level. Given that logic if all the abilities an aberration possess is equivalent to 4 ECL then we do not need to add another RHD for balance, and doing so makes us worse than a tier 4-5 balance point.

Is that clear enough for you?

Yes, clear enough.
1. You are correct.
2. I agree. May not be as linear as I hope. This is a first stab at this. Improvements pending as edge cases crop up.
3. I feel you underestimate the value or HD. They contain some of the fundamental characteristics of the system, useful for any and all character types. And I absolutely do believe 4d8 HP, 3 BAB, 1.33/1.33/2 saves and 8+4*int skill points are worth 1 class level. Maybe not a T1/T2 level (though situationally, it'd be useful there too), but certainly anything below. And T3 is actually the balance point I'm aiming for.

I'm tempted by 8, but that's just a gut feeling. I don't play 3.5 anymore, and I never played ToB melee builds. But that's the question you're answering here, not "how good would this be if medium", but "how good would this be if fewer aberration HD", start with the minimum (aka zero), make sure it's worth it at that level (yes, very much so), and work up.

Honestly, I don't see myself taking this if it had anything more than 4-5 RHD. It loses and delays way too many class features to be worth my effort.
Granted I may skew a little bit towards higher op, but if I stay cautiously conservative, it'll probably be fine.
I ran through a couple of monsters, using that assessment of "when would I not play this" and they came up pretty close to what the method presented yields, so using that validation I figured it gives good enough results to use, until I either discover something horribly bad with it or I come up with a better approach.

But using "gut feeling" was never going to be the primary approach.

Slowly coming to realize maybe I should have approached this the other way around - posting my "gut feeling" and using my mathzy method to validate it.

Remuko

2019-02-22, 03:14 PM

liquidformat

2019-02-22, 04:53 PM

3. I feel you underestimate the value or HD. They contain some of the fundamental characteristics of the system, useful for any and all character types. And I absolutely do believe 4d8 HP, 3 BAB, 1.33/1.33/2 saves and 8+4*int skill points are worth 1 class level. Maybe not a T1/T2 level (though situationally, it'd be useful there too), but certainly anything below. And T3 is actually the balance point I'm aiming for.

This would be true if not everything got hd but the fact is everything gets hd and the only question then is what is the value of said hd. To determine that we have HP, saves, attack bonus, and class features. In the case of monster rhd the value of the hd is lessened by the fact that the racial features aren't directly tied to an rhd and you are locked into those rhd until they are done without the ability to customize.

Aberration rhd give you d8, 3/4th bab, 1 good save, and 2+int skill points (with crap choice of skills for Athach I might add). This is strictly worse than Aristocrat hd so no I don't think I am underestimating the value of rhd.

With that said here is what I am seeing from Attach:
Base adjusted down to medium:
Str +0, Dex +6, Con +2, Int -4, Wis +2, Cha -4
Nat AC +3
(Excluding size adjustments)
Darkvision 60'
Simple Weapon Proficiency
Medium Armor Proficiency
Skills: Climb, Jump, Listen, Spot

As a base race this isn't worth an ECL, even though you get a nice dex bonus you are taking huge hit to mental stats, just based on the above we are at barely at +0 base race.
Until we decide otherwise I am comfortable to going with medium to large and large to huge as enough class features to be acceptable for 2 ECL.
+1 hand and a bite attack with poison rider sits somewhere between 1/2 and 1 ECL of class features, seems ok to call it 1 ECL.
The final bit takes some goofy hand waving using the IM CR chart we are told that Aberration RHD are worth 1/4 of a class level and what this means for our purpose is a bit abstract. Right now we have '3 levels' of class features given by the Attach which means ECL>=3.
I think at this point it would be good to compare the Attach with character builds as we do in Invevitable's threads to figure out how many RHD it needs. Say comparing Attach with 3,4,5,&6 RHD to water orc barbarian 2/warblade 1, barbarian 2/warblade 2, barbarian 2/warblade 3, & barbarian 2/warblade 4. (we have used barb/war blade build in the previous thread as beat stick baseline.)

So at ECL 3 Attach has +8 Str, +2 Dex, +4 Con, -2 Int, +4 Wis, -2 Cha, +9 AC (+8NA +1 Dex -2size +2 not raging), -3bab(offset to +1 taking account of str), +1 ref, +2 Wis, with lower hp and much worse skills compared to the raging water orc. Attach potentially has 4 attacks with a max of 3d6 damage on 3 and 1d6 on the 4th, so it has high damage potential however its size and 3/4 bab progression offset its attack. The real difference is the Attach has much better reach with higher damage potential at a loss of versatility. At level 3 I believe the reach plus the damage potential make an Athach too powerful compared to water orc standard. I believe the sweet spot is between 4 and 5, at 4 rhd the Athach is one level behind for PRCs and two for IL where as at 5 RHD 2 levels behind for PRCs and ~2 IL at that point the question becomes what are 15' reach and higher damage output worth, personally I don't think the Poison rider is worth much since it doesn't scale well past ~level 8.

I vote 4 RHD seems like a good point for Athach because you aren't getting enough to justify being that extra level behind other beatsticks.

Side comments, athach stat block is all messed up it is putting a single morningstar attack at 16 when it should be 18, in which case with multiweapon fighting and 3 morningstars +14/14/14/9, bite should be +14 and it apparently can throw rocks but not sure what range is it 50' or 10' or some other random number?..

Mike Miller

2019-02-22, 06:45 PM

I admit I didn't read the thread in its entirety, but I have an idea. What if you reduced all the target monsters to 1 HD and compared their stats and abilities from that point? Each type would have a similar start. Racial ability bonuses would stand out more. Seemed close to standardization to me.

GreatWyrmGold

2019-02-22, 07:13 PM

1. Nothing at all. But creatures are frequently a combo between random abilities and abstract sets of numbers, and I've decided to compare abstract sets of numbers to other abstract sets of numbers. You know, apples to apples. For the abilities, things are more ambiguous.
The way I see it, the "apples to apples" is "monster characters to demihuman characters".

2. I feel like I'm repeating myself (because I am), but this is just a tool used to break down the monster into easier to quantify chunks. I'm not making Athatches medium and I'm not saying anything about racial bonuses and the like.
I understand that you're not making athatches medium. What I'm saying is that you don't seem to be accounting for the +16 Strength bonus athatches get. That, or you're lumping that (and the other ability adjustments) into the +2 that it gets for size, which seems...odd to me. Why should the baseline comparison for ability scores be the hypothetical "normal" range for their size, instead of the range for "normal" races? It's especially since you said:

And most times, when it's discussed, the following thought crops up "usually just the size increase is worth +1". With which I tend to agree.
I don't see why the ability bonuses would be part of that +1.

Try it this way. Imagine a ZERO racial HD attach...
I like this idea. Can we keep using it?

liquidformat

2019-02-22, 07:28 PM

I understand that you're not making athatches medium. What I'm saying is that you don't seem to be accounting for the +16 Strength bonus athatches get. That, or you're lumping that (and the other ability adjustments) into the +2 that it gets for size, which seems...odd to me. Why should the baseline comparison for ability scores be the hypothetical "normal" range for their size, instead of the range for "normal" races? It's especially since you said:

He is using the size increase chart from the srd http://www.d20srd.org/srd/improvingMonsters.htm#sizeIncreases so increasing from medium to large nets you: +8 str -2 dex +4 Con +2 NA -1 AC/AB +5' reach.
we are not talking about the size increase you gain from spells like enlarge person +2 Str -2 De, -1 AC/AB +5 Reach.
This seems potentially worth a level especially since we are talking about a beatstick.

I like this idea. Can we keep using it?
Isn't that what I did in my last post??

martixy

2019-02-23, 05:54 AM

Okay, the people have spoken.

I'm fine going that way.
Athatches make for good beatsticks, but little else. 4 RHD it is.

Moving on to...

martixy

2019-02-23, 05:59 AM

Belker (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=20871110&postcount=85)

Our first elemental, air type.

Large, good dex and perfect fly 50 ft.
Some smoke abilities that emulate gaseous form. Good for roguish types.

I'm leaning toward 3 RHD, 4 at best.

Remember to adjust the caster level its abilities.

Verdict: -3 RHD [4 ECL]

GreatWyrmGold

2019-02-23, 11:16 AM

He is using the size increase chart from the srd http://www.d20srd.org/srd/improvingMonsters.htm#sizeIncreases so increasing from medium to large nets you: +8 str -2 dex +4 Con +2 NA -1 AC/AB +5' reach.
we are not talking about the size increase you gain from spells like enlarge person +2 Str -2 De, -1 AC/AB +5 Reach.
I know. What does any of this have to do with anything I said?

Isn't that what I did in my last post??
Well, yes, but you're not martixy.

Our first elemental, air type.

Large, good dex and perfect fly 50 ft.
Some smoke abilities that emulate gaseous form. Good for roguish types.

I'm leaning toward 3 RHD, 4 at best.
...Okay?

Lans

2019-02-23, 09:53 PM

Instead of going alphabetical could we do it by HD?

Mike Miller

2019-02-24, 01:01 AM

Instead of going alphabetical could we do it by HD?

Do we have a sorted-by-HD list anywhere?

martixy

2019-02-24, 02:28 AM

Because we do a sorted by book-and-alphabet list (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?518086-The-LA-assignment-archive&p=21798987).

rferries

2019-02-24, 05:11 AM

I agree with all of this. This is how the assessments should be done. The only thing I dont agree with is the conclusion. 8HD is WAY too many for this. 4-5 tops IMO. But otherwise I definitely think assessments should be broken down this way, its much easier to understand and follow and calculate.

I'll chime in to say this does seem the best way to go. However, kudos to OP for getting this thread started, it's something I've long pondered!

Lans

2019-02-24, 10:51 AM

Because we do a sorted by book-and-alphabet list (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?518086-The-LA-assignment-archive&p=21798987).

Why? That seems like a worse way of doing things.

dhasenan

2019-02-24, 11:27 AM

Why? That seems like a worse way of doing things.

If you are looking up a particular monster, you know its name and probably the source book. If you're looking for something to play at a given campaign, you're going to look by source book (based on what your campaign allows) and ECL after RHD reductions. Since it's entirely possible that this thread will reduce a monster from 20RHD to 1, it's not at all useful to sort by starting hit dice.

Also, figuring out which monster to rate next is simple if we sort by source book and entry name. If we sort by hit dice, that's only a partial ordering; there will be twenty or thirty rounds of monsters to rate, with no ordering in each round. It also requires someone to look up every monster listed in the LA Assignment Thread and list its starting racial hit dice, which is a fair amount of work.

Since the LA Assignment Thread is still going, it also means that we might finish the 10RHD monsters and then have a 5RHD monster to rate next.

Ordering by racial hit dice is roughly equivalent to going in random order.

GreatWyrmGold

2019-02-24, 11:39 AM

Why? That seems like a worse way of doing things.
Can you explain why doing it in RHD order is better?

Lans

2019-02-24, 02:05 PM

@dhasenan -good points

Can you explain why doing it in RHD order is better?

I'm not sure it is anymore as dhasenan pointed out a 20 hd creature might wind up with 1 hd. If we do a once over after everything is done then doing it by ECL makes sense, as we should be able to do a wide swathe of creature at once.

Blue Jay

2019-02-25, 01:26 PM

Martixy, I like your general premise and your approach, so thank you for starting this up.

Like the other posters have said, I think you just have to take the monsters one-by-one and evaluate on the fly: I doubt there's any hope for any kind of systematic approach at all.

Can you explain why doing it in RHD order is better?

I'm not necessarily saying that I think we should go by ECL instead of alphabetically, but it is worth noting that low-ECL monsters will probably be a lot easier to rate than high-ECL monsters.

For example, if we were to rate a gnoll, there's really only one possible choice: reduce to 1 RHD. So, there's only one potential solution to evaluate.

Then, the bugbear yields two possible solutions: reduce to 2 RHD or reduce to 1 RHD. A little more involved than the gnoll, but still easy to do.

The current monster, the belker, yields 6 possible solutions, and it's not so easy to decide between 3 RHD or 4 RHD.

When you get to really high ECLs, like the great wyrm dragons or elder elementals, the results could be really swingy: I wouldn't be surprised if different people suggested ECLs that differed by 5 or even 10 for the same monster, because it's not easy to be really precise when making changes that large.

So given that potential volatility, I think it could be very beneficial to start with the easiest monsters first, then work our way up to the more difficult ones.

-----

Belker

Let me put in a vote for Belker, so I can say I'm actually contributing. I made a series of Savage Progressions (https://www.myth-weavers.com/showthread.php?t=439808) using Inevitability's Reassigned LAs for just about all the monsters in the Monster Manual with ECL 4+, so I feel like I've developed my own heuristics for how much to give a monster at any given level. I thought that would give me some insights into this little project, but I guess I just don't have the self-confidence to really believe that. But, maybe I can try looking at the belker from the perspective of building a racial progression for it, and seeing how much should be packed into each level.

I think I'm voting for 3 RHD for the belker. Smoke Claws is kind of a weird attack, so I'm not sure how to rate it exactly; but if the Smoke Claws did damage in d6's, I could make a damage progression similar to Sneak Attack in 5 levels; but Smoke Claws isn't nearly as good or as optimizable as Sneak Attack, and it only does d4's, so I think squishing the damage progression into 3 levels would be fair. The +16 in ability bonuses fits nicely in 4 levels, granting +4 per level (as ViperMagnum likes), but with the Int penalty, cramming the bonuses into 3 levels doesn't seem like a crime to me. The 8 natural armor fits well in a 4-level progression, but I'm not sure how impactful this is on the monster, so a 3-level progression (+3, +3, +2) is probably also fine. Since it's an Air-subtype creature, I think it should have its Fly speed from 1st level, perhaps at 30 feet, then increasing by 10 feet per level (so, full speed by 3rd level). Gaseous form is a 3rd-level spell, but not a particularly potent one, and it also constraints when the belker can use its Smoke Claws; so it definitely should get to use it already at 1st level. Maybe limited rounds/day until 3rd, but giving Smoke Form at will by 3rd level doesn't seem problematic to me at all. Five natural attacks seems like a lot to smash into 3 levels, but the claws and bite are weak, so I don't think they really make that much difference.

I'm not sure looking at it this way helps very much, but hopefully it was informative to somebody in some way?

GreatWyrmGold

2019-02-26, 12:42 AM

I'm not necessarily saying that I think we should go by ECL instead of alphabetically, but it is worth noting that low-ECL monsters will probably be a lot easier to rate than high-ECL monsters. -snip-
I suppose that's fair. It still seems like an unusual way to go about things, especially once you've cut your teeth on a few gnolls and whatnot.

Let me put in a vote for Belker, so I can say I'm actually contributing. I think I'm voting for 3 RHD for the belker.

I'm not sure looking at it this way helps very much, but hopefully it was informative to somebody in some way?
It gave me the impression that you could cram the Belkster into three levels, but they'd be somewhat crowded with features. So I'll vote for 4 RHD.

liquidformat

2019-02-26, 11:02 AM

Belker is a bit goofy since it isn't your traditional bruiser, even though it is large it really strikes me more as a stealth infiltrator type but it is too stupid to really be able to accomplish the role. Really all it has going for it is it is hard to hit and and can fly. Like most things it probably goes best as a swordsage type build but that is more highlighting sworsage than the belker. Over all I think the most problematic feature of the belker is its ability to fly at low levels. However, since it really doesn't have much else going for it I think 4 RHD is a decent set point for the belker, that is only one level before most casters get access to flying so no real issue.

Blue Jay

2019-02-26, 12:11 PM

I suppose that's fair. It still seems like an unusual way to go about things, especially once you've cut your teeth on a few gnolls and whatnot.

That's a fair point. I guess I'm also biased a bit because most of the one's I'm most interested in playing are low-ECL monsters, so maybe there's part of me that just wants to get to those right now!

Regardless, I'll just accept martixy's decision and embrace it: it'll be a good thread, either way.

It gave me the impression that you could cram the Belkster into three levels, but they'd be somewhat crowded with features. So I'll vote for 4 RHD.

Hmm...

Here are some quick attempts:

Level BAB Fort Ref Will Special
1 +0.75 +0.33 +2.50 +0.33 Fly 30 ft (perfect), Smoke Claws 1d4, Smoke Form 5 rds/day, 2 wings, +2 Str, +4 Dex, -4 Int, +3 natural armor
2 +0.75 +0.33 +0.50 +0.33 Bite, Fly 40 ft, Smoke Claws 2d4, Smoke Form 10 rds/day, +4 Move Silently, +4 Dex, +2 Con, +2 natural armor
3 +0.75 +0.33 +0.50 +0.33 2 claws, Fly 40 ft, Large, Smoke Claws 3d4, Smoke Form (at will), +2 Dex, +2 Str, +3 natural armor

Level BAB Fort Ref Will Special
1 +0.75 +0.33 +2.50 +0.33 Fly 30 ft, Smoke Claws 1d4, Smoke Form 5 rds/day, 2 wings, +2 Str, +2 Dex, -4 Int, +2 natural armor
2 +0.75 +0.33 +0.50 +0.33 Bite, Smoke Claws 2d4, Smoke Form 10 rds/day, +2 Move Silently, +2 Dex, +2 Con, +2 natural armor
3 +0.75 +0.33 +0.50 +0.33 2 Claws, Fly 50 ft, Large, Smoke Form 15 rds/day, +2 Str, +2 Dex, +2 natural armor
4 +0.75 +0.33 +0.50 +0.33 Smoke Claws 3d4, Smoke Form (at will), +4 Move Silently, +4 Dex, +2 natural armor

I think they both fit within the typical range, so I think either one works fine. Maybe I'll lean conservative and join you at 4 RHD for the belker.

rferries

2019-02-26, 08:44 PM

I'm going to go as high as 5 RHD for the Belker.

At lower levels, they're balanced against wizards (fly and gaseous form being 3rd-level spells) and have a bunch of natural attacks.

At higher levels, they'll most likely be rogues or more martial-orientated classes, and +10 (!) Dex and elemental immunities will always be useful.

The Pathfinder version is worth looking at - it's amusing how much better it fares than the 3.5 version, by gaining the outsider type and Pathfinder's standardised damage for natural weapons.

martixy

2019-02-27, 05:15 AM

Hm... 4 HD for the Belker seems fair. I tend to skew a bit high-op, so definitely open on correction there.

I see we even had an attempt at creating a savage progression for the creature.

Though, if I may - I have a tip to offer.
Don't give a bit of everything at every level, instead grant strong abilities every level.

For example grant all, or most of the natural armor at 1 level, grant the entire flight speed together (probably at 1st level, since it's a defining trait of the creature, being an air elemental), etc.

Nickel-and-dime bonuses are a common pitfall in game design, and makes things terribly dull and unexciting. Looter-shooters for example tend to suffer from that. 3.5e too. Think of how boring the generic Weapon Focus feat is.

@rferries
I appreciate the sentiment, but I don't think 5 RHD is a good idea. Keep in mind that your first class level already put's you at ECL 5, the same level wizards acquire fly/gaseous form. Even without that, you're at a min 4 RHD, and without any actual class abilities, all you've got is the creature's chassis, which is neat, but nothing special.

So, I'm putting down the belker as a 4.

Moving on to...

martixy

2019-02-27, 05:19 AM

Bugbear (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=20889732&postcount=96)

Generic humanoids, with a bunch of extra abilities.

They don't have any RHD dependent abilities, and following the pattern for your usual playable races, honestly, I'm fine with eliminating ALL RHD altogether.

So, LA+1, -3 RHD for a total ECL of 2.

They honestly seem like they should be a playable race, I don't know what Wizards was thinking.

Verdict: -3 RHD, LA+1 [ECL 2]

liquidformat

2019-02-27, 09:24 AM

Ya that was my thought too, the bugbear is on the weaker side of the +1 LA if you dump all 3 rhd but at the same time humanoid rhd are terrible and I wouldn't play it with 2 humanoid rhd. If it was monsterous humanoid I would be ok with 2 rhd but as is I believe the best idea is +1 LA.

martixy

2019-02-27, 10:10 AM

OgresAreCute

2019-02-27, 10:22 AM

Bugbear is alright at no RHD, LA +1 I think. It's a little weak, but the stat boosts are decent and +3 natural armor is nice. It's not super solid but I think it's a bit too good at LA +0 compared to things like the water orc (bugbear is basically a straight upgrade). If you play with LA buyoff you'll get rid of the LA pretty soon anyway (as soon as you hit ECL 4).

liquidformat

2019-02-27, 10:34 AM

AMX

2019-02-27, 11:21 AM

Frankly, there's also another problem.
2 RHD is obviously too weak.
But if we reduce that to 1 RHD, by RAW that can always be substituted by a class level, making them a bit too strong at ECL 1.

Hence the only available solution, that is consistent with both rules and intended goal is LA+1, no RHD (or, well, technically 1 RHD).

That pretty much sums up my opinion as well - if you were to ...adjust... that particular rule, they'd be fine at 1 RHD, 0 LA.

But since that's not an option, +1 LA seems more appropriate than +0.

liquidformat

2019-02-27, 11:37 AM

That pretty much sums up my opinion as well - if you were to ...adjust... that particular rule, they'd be fine at 1 RHD, 0 LA.

But since that's not an option, +1 LA seems more appropriate than +0.

Ya I would say one humanoid rhd would actually be optimal balance point for bugbear, one way to handle this might be +1 LA that can be exchanged with 1 npc class level? Humanoid hd are better than commoner slightly worse than aristocrat and it is hard to compare to expert but my gut says slightly worse. I find it comical that as a humanoid npc you are better off taking 'humanoid' hd than commoner levels. If the designers were thinking then commoner and humanoid should be exactly the same...

Segev

2019-02-27, 12:06 PM

Frankly, there's also another problem.
2 RHD is obviously too weak.
But if we reduce that to 1 RHD, by RAW that can always be substituted by a class level, making them a bit too strong at ECL 1.

Hence the only available solution, that is consistent with both rules and intended goal is LA+1, no RHD (or, well, technically 1 RHD).

Might be stepping beyond the bounds of the intent of this exercise, but perhaps giving them a racial bonus feat of "any fighter bonus feat" and an extra +2 Strength (not quite replacing/possibly slightly overcompensative for a lost +1 BAB) would make them worth 2 RHD.

OgresAreCute

2019-02-27, 12:15 PM

Might be stepping beyond the bounds of the intent of this exercise, but perhaps giving them a racial bonus feat of "any fighter bonus feat" and an extra +2 Strength (not quite replacing/possibly slightly overcompensative for a lost +1 BAB) would make them worth 2 RHD.

Even if it is outside the scope of the thread, I'm sure anyone intending to actually use a de-RHDed Bugbear would appreciate a little discussion like that.

liquidformat

2019-02-27, 12:21 PM

Might be stepping beyond the bounds of the intent of this exercise, but perhaps giving them a racial bonus feat of "any fighter bonus feat" and an extra +2 Strength (not quite replacing/possibly slightly overcompensative for a lost +1 BAB) would make them worth 2 RHD.

We are already in homebrew world between changing rhd and la so adjusting ability scores and adding/changing racial features doesn't seem like that far fetched of an idea. Especially with monsters like this one that are boarder cases...

rferries

2019-02-28, 01:18 AM

@rferries
I appreciate the sentiment, but I don't think 5 RHD is a good idea. Keep in mind that your first class level already put's you at ECL 5, the same level wizards acquire fly/gaseous form. Even without that, you're at a min 4 RHD, and without any actual class abilities, all you've got is the creature's chassis, which is neat, but nothing special.

Hmm -if they have 5 RHD and LA +0, doesn't that simply make them 5th-level characters? So a party starting at level 5 could have both a 5th-level wizard and a belker that hadn't taken any class levels yet?

GreatWyrmGold

2019-02-28, 02:47 AM

I find it comical that as a humanoid npc you are better off taking 'humanoid' hd than commoner levels. If the designers were thinking then commoner and humanoid should be exactly the same...
I think the designers were thinking something like "Commoner needs to be the worst class possible, because it's basically for characters who don't have a class. It would be weird if any random farmer was tougher or better at fighting than a random PC sorcerer of the same level."
I don't like that perspective, but I understand it.

We are already in homebrew world between changing rhd and la so adjusting ability scores and adding/changing racial features doesn't seem like that far fetched of an idea. Especially with monsters like this one that are boarder cases...
1. They aren't cases which involve boarding something, they are cases where the monsters are located at borders.
2. The scope of the LA-assignment threads' homebrew is tightly-defined: Assign LA's. Suggesting changes beyond that would be like suggesting that the land reform bill also fix the entire tax code; they're related, and can accomplish the same goals, but it's clearly outside the scope of the project.

Hmm -if they have 5 RHD and LA +0, doesn't that simply make them 5th-level characters? So a party starting at level 5 could have both a 5th-level wizard and a belker that hadn't taken any class levels yet?
Are you saying that a belker with gaseous form, flight, and a couple of minor tricks is equivalent to a wizard with gaseous form, fly, and a whole spellbook of tricks ranging from mage hand and magic missile to fireball and alter self?

rferries

2019-02-28, 03:22 AM

Are you saying that a belker with gaseous form, flight, and a couple of minor tricks is equivalent to a wizard with gaseous form, fly, and a whole spellbook of tricks ranging from mage hand and magic missile to fireball and alter self?

If alter self is used as a balance point this project is doomed to failure before it begins haha.

More like they're a 5th-level rogue or fighter with +10 Dex, elemental immunities, permanent perfect flight, +8 natural AC, more natural attacks than you can shake a stick at, and a 3rd-level spell as an SLA. Swap out Alertness for Flyby Attack or Improved Multiattack and they're quite strong for 5th level, and would trounce any wizard not specifically built to defeat them.

martixy

2019-02-28, 06:39 AM

If alter self is used as a balance point this project is doomed to failure before it begins haha.

More like they're a 5th-level rogue or fighter with +10 Dex, elemental immunities, permanent perfect flight, +8 natural AC, more natural attacks than you can shake a stick at, and a 3rd-level spell as an SLA. Swap out Alertness for Flyby Attack or Improved Multiattack and they're quite strong for 5th level, and would trounce any wizard not specifically built to defeat them.

Can we please at least do the comparison with a solid Tier3 - a bard, a psychic warrior, a warblade and not fighters and rogues?

Cuz tier 3 is our minimal balance point. (I probably skew even higher.)

In which case no - all of the listed things are are not enough for ECL 5.

In any case, I think we can all agree on the Bugbear @LA1/RHD0.

Moving on to...

martixy

2019-02-28, 06:45 AM

Chaos Beast (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=20942418&postcount=129)

+4 Str, +2 Dex, +2 Con
+5 nat AC
2 claws
Immunity to Transformation
Corporeal Instability

Abilities and armor are probably worth at least a +1, the immunity is actually something probably shouldn't even be there - is serves the same function as the Shapechanger subtype - it should probably have that instead of a designated ability.
Corporeal Instability is its main feature, a good save or suck.
Outsider HD are generally the better ones, so we might not end up needing to shave that much.
That said, I can't see anything of worth past that one ability. And it's unclear what items you can even use, being just an amorphous blob. It does at least call out being able to use weapons.
Speed is also 20 ft, which weights things down as well.

I'm leaning towards ECL 3. So -5 RHD.

Verdict: -5 RHD [ECL 3]*
* Corporeal instability creates chaos beasts. Be careful at lower level, as you might end up creating a threat you can't handle. Alternatively, rule the spawned creature can't have more HD than the character that cause the transformation.

rferries

2019-02-28, 08:22 PM

Hmm, we might need some ground rules for stats like SR - are we saying it scales with level (as for drow), or is it fixed? I assume we're at least ruling that DCs scale only with RHD?

Corporeal instability is a fantastic property to add to your attacks, though if the DC doesn't scale it quickly becomes much less useful. I assume we're also ruling it doesn't stack e.g. a subject doesn't have to check against multiple instances of the curse. And finally, I'm assuming it applies only to the creature's claws.

Outsider RHD are one of the top two RHD types (outsider and dragon).

Ability scores and natural AC aren't huge.

ECL 3 seems fine to me, so agreed on 3 RHD total.

Lans

2019-03-01, 08:20 AM

Should we use other creatures as comparison points?

martixy

2019-03-01, 08:24 AM

Hmm, we might need some ground rules for stats like SR - are we saying it scales with level (as for drow), or is it fixed? I assume we're at least ruling that DCs scale only with RHD?

Good point.

There are actually a ton of minor details on advancement that we're just glossing over and have no clear answer.

For example SR. There is no defined answer that I've been able to find, Core books, Rules Compendium or Internet. Is it fixed? Does it scale? What does it scale with?
Not to mention all the other ambiguities.

For my part, there are two positions I see:

Position 1: Most consistent with rules.
SR scales with RHD (not class levels)
SLAs scale only with RHD (not class levels)
Su scale with total HD (including class levels).

Position 2: Most usable.
Everything scales with both RHD and Class level.

But this really remains in the purview of the DM to decide. In my game (which features exclusively monstrous PCs, and we've ran into these issues with various racial features, I use #2).

Keep in mind some SLAs explicitly mention caster level. Those will never scale with anything. For example my Pixie PC's SLAs will never advance.

Additional note: The other LA thread was arguing the same thing around the time of the summoning ooze discussion, and they seemed in favor of #2 as well.

Should we use other creatures as comparison points?

Not only. Also classes. With an eye towards tier 3 or higher.

ShurikVch

2019-03-01, 09:36 AM

Due to the nature of the HD system in D&D however, we frequently end up with monsters that are too weak even with 0 LA. Or LA-0 in the other thread's parlance. That means there has to be some other kind of ECL reduction to make these creatures competitiveActually, it's already exists in the published materials

Epic Level Handbook:

Monster
HD
ECL
LA

Atropal
66
44
-22

Hagunemnon
44
36
-8

Hunefer
50
27
-23

Ruin swarm
50
25
-25

Uvuudaum
38
30
-8

Also, (arguably): Dragon #293 gave ECL for creatures from the Monster Manual; some of Animals (Cat, Lizard, Monkey, Rat, and Toad) are got ECL of 0; but you can't play as Animal without either Awaken it, or adding some template - such as Celestial or Fiendish; Awaken adds 2 HD, templates - +2 LA; thus, it means - those Animals should have starting LA of -2 or -3

GreatWyrmGold

2019-03-02, 01:29 PM

If alter self is used as a balance point this project is doomed to failure before it begins haha.
You're the one who brought up the wizard comparison, dude. If you're going to claim that the belker should be ECL 5 and bring up things wizards can do as a comparison, you should be prepared to explain why the belker is equivalent to everything a 5th-level wizard can do. Not just gaseous form and alter self, but mage hand, magic missile, fireball, and every other spell a wizard is likely to have in their spellbook.

Actually, it's already exists in the published materials

Epic Level Handbook:
The ELH is one of those sourcebooks which are basically written in 3.0. Not sure how relevant its ECL suggestions are to the 3.5 paradigm.

For example SR. There is no defined answer that I've been able to find, Core books, Rules Compendium or Internet. Is it fixed? Does it scale? What does it scale with?
There is no consistent answer. Sometimes (including IIRC every monster with SR and an 'as characters' section), it's specified to scale with class levels, but it's frequently not mentioned. Is that because scaling with class levels is the exception, or because they didn't see any point in repeating the norm?

rferries

2019-03-03, 02:25 AM

You're the one who brought up the wizard comparison, dude. If you're going to claim that the belker should be ECL 5 and bring up things wizards can do as a comparison, you should be prepared to explain why the belker is equivalent to everything a 5th-level wizard can do. Not just gaseous form and alter self, but mage hand, magic missile, fireball, and every other spell a wizard is likely to have in their spellbook.

I think we're talking past each other.

I was saying that a belker is an ~ECL 5 character - I just used a wizard as an example (given the easy analogues of its flight and supernatural ability to gaseous form and fly, which the rules allow PCs to access at 5th level). A belker obviously isn't as versatile as a wizard, but it has more endurance and combat ability.

GreatWyrmGold

2019-03-03, 02:50 PM

liquidformat

2019-03-03, 04:06 PM

I think we're talking past each other.

I was saying that a belker is an ~ECL 5 character - I just used a wizard as an example (given the easy analogues of its flight and supernatural ability to gaseous form and fly, which the rules allow PCs to access at 5th level). A belker obviously isn't as versatile as a wizard, but it has more endurance and combat ability.

So this is what I am seeing:
Worse versatility than a fifth level wizard.
Worse fighting than a fifth level fighter.
Worse skill monkey abilities than a fifth level bard or rogue.
Worse survivability than a fifth level barbarian.

Have I missed anything here? It is worse than any fifth level character you can pick. It clearly is too under powered to be playable at ecl 5, we have already gone over why it works as a ecl 4 monster, can we move on?

On to chaos beast, Its ability scores, immunities, and +2 to survival when following tracks is enough for at least one ecl. The rest really depends on how a dm handles this. If the dc on corporeal instability scales then that is pretty powerful if not then the ability is pretty much worthless past level 3 or 4. SR 7+HD is under powered, and if it doesn't scale SR 15 past levle 5 ish. The only plus side for chaos beast is outsider hd are nice and its skills are quite nice.
If nothing scales with character levels then I think this is an ECL 2 monster if it does scale ECL 3 seems reasonable. As nice as outsider hd are there aren't enough abilities here to make them worth while.

GreatWyrmGold

2019-03-03, 05:46 PM

The chaos beast definitely needs an asterisk at low levels. You risk turning your enemies into CR 7 monsters, after all. A CR 7 encounter in the middle of another encounter has the potential to kill party members if they're all level 3. Past level 10 or so, turning into a chaos beast is a Bale Polymorph LiteTM.

rferries

2019-03-04, 01:05 AM

martixy

2019-03-04, 09:13 AM

I just say I'm a bit flummoxed by how underpowered people think an ECL 5 belker would be.

+10 Dex - great touch a.c., Ref saves, initiative, and attacks (via Weapon Finesse)

+2 Con - racial HD are on par with fighter HD for survivability; only 8 hp behind a barbarian with the same base Con.

+8 natural ac - a free set of full plate that stacks with Dex bonus to ac, and with the bonus from actual armour.

The option of Improved Multiattack, Flyby Attack, Ability Focus (smoke claws), etc.

5 (!) natural attacks, virtually all of which will be hitting due to Multiattack and Weapon Finesse.

Unlimited flight for scouting and combat.

+4 Strength and elemental immunities are just the icing on the cake.

And remember, a belker PC is entitled to proper ability scores (hello Dex 28!) and equipment (including some combination of gauntlet of strength +2, gloves of dexterity +2, ring of protection +1, bracers of armour +2, mythril chain shirt, or even amulet of mighty fists +1).

None of the above is intended to claim that belkers are superior to a particular class. However, there's a lot to be said for their particular strengths.

Do not overestimate the value of ability scores. Class features are what define your primary mode of operation, they give you the abilities you use to affect your environment in novel ways. Most times ability scores just give you higher numbers in a variety derived stats.

Also, not quite sure about it, but are you perhaps under the misconception that belker comes together with all the feats listed in its entry?
Because it does not. A feat has to explicitly be listed as a bonus feat for you to receive it with the creature's chassis. The belker has no such feats, and the ones you listed will be competing viciously with other build-enabling feats, in what is likely to be a martial character.

All you have no is something that is particularly well suited for a specific thing (it'd make a good rogue, with the high dex and enough survivability to close the distance and stay there to get off a full-attack or two).
But dex won't make you good at fort or will saves (warblade can use conc for all 3 saves). It won't allow you to make crazy stuff happen (warblade can mess with the action economy, can remove status effects, can swift-action move). He can get in there and make sure he's able to get off his abilities, in the face of opposition. You can get the belker character all of the equipment you listed, but that won't help him when he succumbs to the first save-or-die that comes his way (those tend to target fort or will). He doesn't have the rogue's evasion so even his high reflex won't do much good against blasting.

There is literally not enough practical effectiveness to justify anything more than ECL 4.

@GreatWyrmGold
Good point about the asterisk, though it's not unreasonable rule you create chaos beasts of your own HD/ECL, in which case, given the poor HD, they're a reasonable wild-card for a party combat situation.

Also, one thing I failed to mention is the 20 ft. movement speed, which puts them in the slow category. Just another bit that prevents them from reasonably being assigned anything higher than ECL3.

I think we're in enough agreement for now (we can always revisit if someone disagrees).

Therefore, moving on to...

martixy

2019-03-04, 09:22 AM

Chuul (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=20968935&postcount=140)

Large
+10 Str, +6 Dex, +8 Con, +4 Wis, -6 Cha
+10 nat AC
Aquatic/Amphibious
Swim 20 ft.
Improved Grab+Constrict
Immunity to poison
2 claws

The only standout feature is the Paralytic tentacles. It isn't worth much on its own though.

The abilities are pretty nice, though you won't be going into sorcery or arts. Wis bonus is pretty workable with regard to casting though.
The generic chassis is probably worth a +2 (good armor, dual environment). Your mileage may vary.
It does have one of the better constricts (3d6). The tentacles are a good save-or-suck, though they require some setup.
Visually alone, you might have some usability issues though, what with those claws. For example wielding weapons, or any amount of delicate work. (why not zoidberg? (https://youtu.be/GuxeoACiWIM?t=35))
Overall not bad.

We're at around ECL4-5 (-6/7 RHD) probably. I'm leaning towards ECL 5.

Verdict: -6 RHD [ECL 5]

liquidformat

2019-03-04, 12:28 PM

All you have no is something that is particularly well suited for a specific thing (it'd make a good rogue, with the high dex and enough survivability to close the distance and stay there to get off a full-attack or two).

I actually don't think it makes a good rogue without a lot of work, sure it has a +10 dex but it also has a -4 penalty to hide for being large and a big part of being a good rogue is kills and with a -4 int this thing isn't exactly going to have a lot of skill points which is compounded by the fact that it only has listen, move silently, and spot for the first 4-5 levels and only 7-8 skill points to put into its three skills. It is so far behind in skills that trying to go rogue is worthless. Without invisibility this thing is a pretty worthless scout, sure it can fly but the enemies will be able to see and most likely hear it too which is the opposite of what you want for a scout.

The Belker is just a beat stick and being a dex based beatstick means it isn't even particularly good at being a beatstick without ignoring its natural 'aptitudes'.

On to Zoidberg!
Being aquatic is always weird as swimming is either completely worthless and never going to come up or you are playing in an aquatic game where it is paramount. As such I believe it should be ignored altogether because it is such a swing feature unlike climb and fly which can be utilized well in most campaigns.
Ability scores come out to +12 which puts us at 3 rhd min
+10 NA is very high for 3-5 RHD, normally found around 8+ RHD
claw damage is quite good comparable to long swords.
Improved grab+constrict+paralysis tentacles is quite powerful and has potential to turn grappling into save or loose. Though around level 8+ grapple falls off in usefulness due to freedom of movement.
skill list is small but useful and with positive int will be more so.
The lack of functional hands will be quite an issue for doing things like opening doors which is a major issue and being large is as much a gain as it is a hindrance.

I am thinking 5rhd is a good choice for Zoidberg, this puts him 2 bab behind other beatsticks. It has good will save and the high dex/con balance out its low ref&fort saves. Compared to a water orc barbarian 2/warblade 3 it has better ref save and much better ac, better will +2 more str/con, less hp, -2 attack compared to a raging water orc and less versatility.

GreatWyrmGold

2019-03-04, 04:11 PM

@GreatWyrmGold
Good point about the asterisk, though it's not unreasonable rule you create chaos beasts of your own HD/ECL, in which case, given the poor HD, they're a reasonable wild-card for a party combat situation.
That would make the chaos beast significantly less off a team-killing f*ktard.

Also, I'd like to point out that not everything with claws and tentacles is Zoidberg. For ftagn's sake, Cthulhu is more Zoidberg than the chuul (and probably more chuul than it is Zoidberg).

liquidformat

2019-03-06, 04:28 PM

That would make the chaos beast significantly less off a team-killing f*ktard.

Also, I'd like to point out that not everything with claws and tentacles is Zoidberg. For ftagn's sake, Cthulhu is more Zoidberg than the chuul (and probably more chuul than it is Zoidberg).

I don't know Chuul could make for a more 'realistic' zoidberg, Cthulhu is too competent to be zoidberg...

GreatWyrmGold

2019-03-08, 02:35 AM

I don't know Chuul could make for a more 'realistic' zoidberg, Cthulhu is too competent to be zoidberg...
I'm pretty sure that's an insult to chuulkind. Elan is more competent than Zoidberg.

liquidformat

2019-03-08, 12:18 PM

I'm pretty sure that's an insult to chuulkind. Elan is more competent than Zoidberg.

To be fair, Chuul are -0 LA lobster people who are too weak for their ECL so especially when compared to an elder evil I think it is a fair assessment to say they are more zoidberg then Cthulhu is...

Anyways back on topic what is everyone thinking for Chuul's ECL? If the paralysis effect is scaling at 10+ 1/2hd+con mod I think 5 rhd.

martixy

2019-03-08, 05:23 PM

Anyways back on topic what is everyone thinking for Chuul's ECL? If the paralysis effect is scaling at 10+ 1/2hd+con mod I think 5 rhd.

Yes, please. Ideally, I'd like more than one opinion, thank you.
Also, there is no if. It scales by RAW. With CON, as specifically noted.

liquidformat

2019-03-08, 11:25 PM

Yes, please. Ideally, I'd like more than one opinion, thank you.
Also, there is no if. It scales by RAW. With CON, as specifically noted.

It scales with Con, but does it scale with hd/rhd?

martixy

2019-03-09, 01:33 PM

It scales with Con, but does it scale with hd/rhd?

It does. The rules text is omitted in the SRD, but present in the Rules Compendium.

Extraordinary ability saving throw DC = 10 + 1/2 the
creature’s HD + the modifier for the ability score on which
the ability is based + other modifiers (often racial)

Karl Aegis

2019-03-11, 12:11 AM

martixy

2019-03-11, 04:28 PM

If you reduce the hit dice of the chuul to less than six, reduce the natural armor to 5 and make it medium sized. It's notable feature is its pair of oversized claws; the claws deal damage as a morning star, have improved grab and can constrict, signs that these are exotic weapons that can hit more often than an equal level Fighter. The option to take Improved Natural Attack for 1-6 damage is on par with Weapon Specialization, for what that's worth.

At seven hit dice, the chuul has the option to segue into the shadowdancer prestige class, giving it some defensive abilities and a shadow companion for assistance scouting at the cost of cross-class dance ranks which you get back in a few levels from the improved skill points. It's not great, but it is certainly better than trying to pick up a base class this late in the game. Spring Attack, transfer your grabbed enemy to your tentacles and then shadow jumping underwater over two turns is an idea. Not impressive, but it's there.

Reducing size (e.g. de-advancing monsters) is not an unreasonable idea, but we have no good benchmark for which HD should serve as size thresholds.

In this case a chuul like that would end up +2 Str, +8 Dex, +4 Con, +8 nat AC, 2d6 on constrict and 1d8 on the claws.
Good in general, but I'd def put that as one HD lower - at ECL4.

In any case, I'm not waiting anymore, putting the our pseudo-Zoidy wanna-be as ECL 5. Time to move on...

martixy

2019-03-11, 04:47 PM

Delver (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21002282&postcount=151)

Huge +(+6 Dex, +2 Con, +10 nat AC)
+16 Str, +2 Dex, +10 Con, +4 Int, +4 Wis, +2 Cha
+15 nat AC
Burrow 10 ft.
2 slams
Corrosive Slime
Immunity to acid
Tremorsense 60 ft.
Stone Shape

This is honestly not a terrible one.
Huge size could pose challenges, so could manipulating the environment.
It does have an unusual ecology (burrow, acid immunity, tremorsense), which will probably be useful in anything apart from deep space or a sea-based game.
Corrosive slime is both defensive and offensive, so that's cool.
Stone shape is kinda at-will, with a 10 minute cooldown. I guess it can be considered per-encounter?

I'd probably give it ECL 7/6, or RHD -8/-9.
Depends on what kind of adventuring difficulties it might cause. Can it wield weapons? It's unclear. It does have vaguely hand/paw-shaped limbs so eh?

Verdict: ???

RoTWS

2019-03-11, 05:12 PM

I'd probably give it ECL 7/6, or RHD -8/-9.
Depends on what kind of adventuring difficulties it might cause. Can it wield weapons? It's unclear. It does have vaguely hand/paw-shaped limbs so eh?

Verdict: ???

Those limbs look more like animal paws than human hands, so I doubt they can wield weapons. The difficulties mean I'm more inclined to a lower score, so ECL 6 (RHD -9)

RoTWS

2019-03-11, 05:55 PM

Monster name
Estimated LA
Estimated ECL
RHD Adjustment

Animated Object, Large
-0
3
-1

Animated Object, Huge
-0
4
-4

Animated Object, Gargantuan
-0
5
-11

Animated Object, Colossal
-0
6
-25

Athach
-0
4
-10

Belker
-0
4
-10

Bugbear
+1
2
-3

Chaos Beast
0
3
-5

Chuul
0
5
-6

You forgot to cover the Adult and Elder Arrowhawks and the Greater Abyssal Basilisk.
(Also, for some reason I had to kill the links, since 10 posts are required to have links even if you're quoting them and the system thinks I only have 2 despite my previous activity both in Roleplaying Games and in Forum Games.)

martixy

2019-03-11, 08:11 PM

You forgot to cover the Adult and Elder Arrowhawks and the Greater Abyssal Basilisk.
(Also, for some reason I had to kill the links, since 10 posts are required to have links even if you're quoting them and the system thinks I only have 2 despite my previous activity both in Roleplaying Games and in Forum Games.)

That's intentional, forgot to explicitly mention why in the first post. Have done so now.

liquidformat

2019-03-12, 10:13 AM

Delver (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21002282&postcount=151) ....

So on the plus side this thing has good mental stats which is rare for beat sticks, it can talk which is a plus since you don't have to jump through any hoops there, and it has a decent skill list. On the minus side, as said before most likely not a tool user and even worse it is huge with 1d6 slam which is absolute garbage. Also while stone shape is a cool idea a ten minute cool down sucks and makes it a once encounter ability.

Even though the delver is huge and has pretty nice ability scores I am just scratching my head over what to do with it, strangely enough I think with tremor sense and burrowing speed the best route would be unarmed strike and try and pickup sneak attack with full bab, maybe Nightsong Enforcer. After thinking things over I am putting my support behind ECL 4, this thing has enough negatives already to be underpowered, further handicapping it by being two bab behind is just mean.

dhasenan

2019-03-13, 05:32 PM

Depends on what kind of adventuring difficulties it might cause. Can it wield weapons? It's unclear. It does have vaguely hand/paw-shaped limbs so eh?

Looks like paws to me. And no mouthpick weapon; its mouth is under it. You might argue that you get a bite attack if you occupy the same space as a significantly smaller creature, but this thing only eats stone/mucus sludge, so it's probably not good at biting.

The Corrosive Slime ability is a huge problem. It doesn't exempt your items, and it doesn't exempt you. The Delver has rock-like skin, so it's a stony creature, so it takes 8d10 damage per round from using Corrosive Slime. The 15RHD version would kill itself in an average of four rounds; most equipment would only last a couple. Plus the Stone Shape ability requires using Corrosive Slime (but doesn't override the damage clause). So those are two abilities you want to avoid at all costs. That just leaves a pile of stats and two 1d6 slam attacks.

But can you toggle it? It's implied by the text that a Delver is normally covered with the slime (both in the appearance and in the Stone Shape ability). If it isn't toggleable, the Delver can only live as long as it keeps washing the slime off itself, making it inappropriate for a character. Plus if it enters a throneroom or inn, it's going to corrode the floor. If you put it on a raft, it will eat its way through the raft. If you ask it to toggle a lever, there's a 10% chance it eats the lever instead.

If the ability is toggleable, you can just leave it off, and then you need to be careful when eating to avoid corrosive sliming yourself to death. It doesn't have any ability to apply water to itself to wash off the slime, so that's probably a cooperative endeavor involving several helpers, stepladders, and buckets.

So you need to houserule that it's not vulnerable to its own slime and clarify that it's a toggleable ability, so that's a *.

At 9 RHD, to follow its CR, this thing trails behind a pure barbarian with a +1 Flaming Greatsword in pure damage output, and it has no future. At 4 RHD, it's got two 1d6 slams at +9, whereas a Barbarian 4 water orc has a single attack at +10 dealing 1d6 damage (plus actual class features). If the orc put a lot of its money into its weapon, that could be 2d6 instead, putting it solidly in the lead offensively. Defensively, it's a bit behind. But the orc can actually go inside buildings and pick up small objects and tie knots, is a lot faster, and can use a compound bow. The delver has a burrow speed and is good at excavation.

So 4* sounds reasonable.

It would be an impressive mount, though.

Lans

2019-03-13, 11:40 PM

It's immune to acid

dhasenan

2019-03-14, 12:33 AM

It's immune to acid

Thank you. (I didn't spot that it was acid damage; the description only says that it does acid damage against organics.) Still, any character that uses items will want this ability to be inactive most of the time.

liquidformat

2019-03-15, 10:51 AM

Looks like paws to me. And no mouthpick weapon; its mouth is under it. You might argue that you get a bite attack if you occupy the same space as a significantly smaller creature, but this thing only eats stone/mucus sludge, so it's probably not good at biting.

The Corrosive Slime ability is a huge problem. It doesn't exempt your items, and it doesn't exempt you. The Delver has rock-like skin, so it's a stony creature, so it takes 8d10 damage per round from using Corrosive Slime. The 15RHD version would kill itself in an average of four rounds; most equipment would only last a couple. Plus the Stone Shape ability requires using Corrosive Slime (but doesn't override the damage clause). So those are two abilities you want to avoid at all costs. That just leaves a pile of stats and two 1d6 slam attacks.

But can you toggle it? It's implied by the text that a Delver is normally covered with the slime (both in the appearance and in the Stone Shape ability). If it isn't toggleable, the Delver can only live as long as it keeps washing the slime off itself, making it inappropriate for a character. Plus if it enters a throneroom or inn, it's going to corrode the floor. If you put it on a raft, it will eat its way through the raft. If you ask it to toggle a lever, there's a 10% chance it eats the lever instead.

If the ability is toggleable, you can just leave it off, and then you need to be careful when eating to avoid corrosive sliming yourself to death. It doesn't have any ability to apply water to itself to wash off the slime, so that's probably a cooperative endeavor involving several helpers, stepladders, and buckets.

So you need to houserule that it's not vulnerable to its own slime and clarify that it's a toggleable ability, so that's a *.

At 9 RHD, to follow its CR, this thing trails behind a pure barbarian with a +1 Flaming Greatsword in pure damage output, and it has no future. At 4 RHD, it's got two 1d6 slams at +9, whereas a Barbarian 4 water orc has a single attack at +10 dealing 1d6 damage (plus actual class features). If the orc put a lot of its money into its weapon, that could be 2d6 instead, putting it solidly in the lead offensively. Defensively, it's a bit behind. But the orc can actually go inside buildings and pick up small objects and tie knots, is a lot faster, and can use a compound bow. The delver has a burrow speed and is good at excavation.

So 4* sounds reasonable.

It would be an impressive mount, though.

If an ability is so dysfunctional that it ends up killing itself then you can assume you are incorrect in your interpretation of the rules for said creature...

martixy

2019-03-17, 11:56 AM

Pretty sure any playable version of this would have to go with the less dysfunctional version of not dissolving its own items. But it is worth an asterisk at least.

It has decent mental stats, I can kinda see it not being a beatstick too (especially if you de-advance it to large or medium).
I'm kinda hesitant to bring it all the way back down to 4 tho. It does have a crapton of stats and AC. A lost BAB isn't the end of the world, and a monster game is better off using fractional BAB anyway, lessening the gap further.

At 9 RHD, to follow its CR, this thing trails behind a pure barbarian with a +1 Flaming Greatsword in pure damage output, and it has no future. At 4 RHD, it's got two 1d6 slams at +9, whereas a Barbarian 4 water orc has a single attack at +10 dealing 1d6 damage (plus actual class features). If the orc put a lot of its money into its weapon, that could be 2d6 instead, putting it solidly in the lead offensively. Defensively, it's a bit behind. But the orc can actually go inside buildings and pick up small objects and tie knots, is a lot faster, and can use a compound bow. The delver has a burrow speed and is good at excavation.

So 4* sounds reasonable.

Taking this as an example:
Not only are we forgetting damage, which is 1d6+8+2d6 acid, but the two attacks more than make up for the 1-lower attack roll. I'd say that puts IT solidly in the lead offensively. Couple that with the stronger defenses and a good smattering of mental stats. Makes me hesitant to bring it all the way down to 4, asterisk notwithstanding.
Being able to enter buildings is a non-sequitur. If you're gonna have monsters in your game like that, you'll need some provision for accommodating the varied creature sizes.

I'll give an example savage progression.

Level BAB Fort Ref Will Special
1 +0.75 +0.33 +0.33 +2.50 Burrow, Immunity to Acid, Tremorsense, Slams
2 +0.75 +0.33 +0.33 +0.50 Large
3 +0.75 +0.33 +0.33 +0.50 +6 Dex, +2 Con, +5 AC, Corrosive Slime
4 +0.75 +0.33 +0.33 +0.50 Huge
5 +0.75 +0.33 +0.33 +0.50 +4 Int, +4 Wis, +2 Cha, +5 AC, Stone Shape
At 4 it feels like you're cramming way too much in there.

dhasenan

2019-03-17, 03:24 PM

Not only are we forgetting damage, which is 1d6+8+2d6 acid, but the two attacks more than make up for the 1-lower attack roll.

The 2d6 acid damage is from the ability that melts your own equipment. Which makes Vow of Poverty pretty attractive, I'll admit.

RoTWS

2019-03-18, 10:01 PM

The 2d6 acid damage is from the ability that melts your own equipment. Which makes Vow of Poverty pretty attractive, I'll admit.
If Vow of Poverty will actually optimize a character, that character is ****.
4*. Without melting its items, this would actually be useful.

martixy

2019-03-24, 11:56 AM

If it didn't dissolve its own equipment would it be worth 5 RHD?

I feel like everyone keeps including the asterisk in the final assessment, which is not something we should be doing.

dhasenan

2019-03-26, 11:39 PM

If it didn't dissolve its own equipment would it be worth 5 RHD?

I feel like everyone keeps including the asterisk in the final assessment, which is not something we should be doing.

So the houserule here is that the slime affects your enemies, their weapons, and their armor, but nothing else? It magically goes through your armor and so forth?

At 5th level, it can purchase enough items to start making up for its issues, and the melee / grappling bonuses are still good enough to carry it through that sort of combat. I'd call it tier 4 at that point.

It's also pretty unkind to the DM, who has to prepare versions of each monster with and without weapons, with and without armor, and judge how stony, fleshy, or metallic each enemy is.

martixy

2019-03-27, 11:50 AM

There's 2 trains of thought here:
Verisimilitude and Consistency.

With the former, you got acid dissolving your items.
With the latter, given that Acid is a form of energy damage in D&D, and how many similar energy effects specifically note they do not damage your equipment, acid has no reason to feel any more special than fire or cold damage.

I feel like both are valid approaches. For some gameplay trumps fluff, for others verisimilitude is a key component of the game. I try not to judge.

Bringing us back to the question:
If it didn't dissolve its own equipment would it be worth 5 RHD?

...which you didn't answer.
(IMO, the answer is yes.)

dhasenan

2019-03-27, 02:35 PM

5RHD sounds reasonable. Like I already said, it seems like tier 4 at that point.

liquidformat

2019-03-27, 02:52 PM

I like going with the blanket rule that abilities like this don't ruin the creature's own equipment just because it makes for a more fun game with less useless hoops to jump through. This also helps with some weird questions for fire based and acid based creatures such as how doesn't it melt through the ground and just get stuck falling ever deeper into the ground. We are already in the realm of suspended disbelief with the blanket statement of 'magic' stop trying to apply silly dysfunctional logic that does nothing to enhance the game and only adds more stupid hoops to jump through.

Anyways I still don't think not ruining its equipment is enough of a boost to bring this thing up an entire rhd. My earlier rating ignored this dysfunctional interpretation of acid and still didn't make sense to have 5 rhd. I stick with 4 rhd.

GreatWyrmGold

2019-03-29, 10:28 AM

This also helps with some weird questions for fire based and acid based creatures such as how doesn't it melt through the ground and just get stuck falling ever deeper into the ground.
Most fire doesn't melt dirt, and most acid is way less potent than xenomorph blood. (And even if it did dissolve dirt, it would get saturated before it got too far. Which could be its own problem, but meh.)

liquidformat

2019-03-29, 11:44 AM

Most fire doesn't melt dirt, and most acid is way less potent than xenomorph blood. (And even if it did dissolve dirt, it would get saturated before it got too far. Which could be its own problem, but meh.)

I recall there are some monsters with screwy enough burn abilities that are continuous and deal enough damage that by RAW there is no reason they shouldn't be destroying any surface they are standing on which is an issue. Magmin's melt weapon ability has this type of feel if you were to read into it at all.

Blue Jay

2019-04-22, 12:59 AM

Are we still going here? I think martixy has put together the best system for handling negative LA, so I'd hate to see this die. I will add my voice to the chorus of 5 RHD for the delver, in the hopes that it might help this thread not die.

I think the next one is the derro, and if you don't mind me jumping the gun a bit, I'll go ahead and vote for 2 RHD for the derro. I honestly think 3 is fine too, but with that sunlight weakness and the lack of scaling on the Spell Resistance, 2 is probably more appropriate.

Lans

2019-04-22, 01:26 AM

I think derro is on a very fine line, where it might be appropriate at 3 Hd

Blue Jay

2019-04-30, 11:17 AM

I think derro is on a very fine line, where it might be appropriate at 3 Hd

Does anyone else think the derro is worth its current 3 HD? So far, two of us seem to think it's close.

liquidformat

2019-04-30, 03:29 PM

I find the Derro kind of goofy to get my head around, +6 net ability scores and +2 natural armor is pretty good, especially when madness helps make wis a dump stat (as long as you aren't interested in any skills with wis). I personally think the version with madness is the more interesting one though can't understand why these guys aren't always CE or atleast always chaotic. Daze isn't great to begin with and becomes irrelevant in a couple levels, sound burst while not horrible you aren't exactly going to be pumping out huge save dcs. But darkness and ghost sounds are pretty good for a while. Poison use is a bit expensive but you are low enough level that it is a decent option. +4 hide/move silently is nice but nothing special and +1d6 Sneak attack isn't anything to sneeze at. The biggest downside to these guys is that they tan worse than the irish ginger at the beach. Full bab and two good saves is nice and these guys seem like a mix between gish, scout, and skill monkies and probably push you towards a rogue.

I believe they have enough going on that if they didn't have the horrible light sensitivity I would be happy with them at 3 rhd, even though they kind of suffer from lack of focus. At 2 rhd I am afraid they are too powerful to not choose, they have +4 dex, +2 con, +6 cha and madness allows their -6 wis to be ignorable. I could totally see going with a rogue warlock build or another cha caster and totally kicking face with these things. Derro without madness I think I would be comfortable with 2 rhd though.

Blue Jay

2019-05-04, 05:28 PM

So I guess we have three votes of "2 or 3 HD" for the derro. I like liquidformat's suggestion of 2 HD for a sane derro, and 3 for a derro with Madness, and it sounds like that's pretty close to the consensus among the three of us.

How about the destrachan? This is a monster I actually kind of find interesting,

Large size
Bonuses to all abilities. By ViperMagnum's criteria (+4 ability scores and +1 natural armor per level), it's right on par for 8 HD. +8 Wis stands out, but a destrachan cleric or druid would be handicapped by the loss of caster levels.
Blind, with all the immunities that gives, and a good Blindsight range (100 ft)
2 claws (1d6) are its only weapons, and maaaaybe it can wield manufactured weapons (but I doubt it)
Destructive Harmonics is kind of neat, in that it can be modulated for different effects; but the large area of effect actually makes it feel uncontrollable, so it's kind of a liability. Still maybe good for blasting a door down or something like that. Maybe it's the rough equivalent of a 3rd-level blasting spell (or a couple 3rd-level blasting spells).

I feel like 5 HD is a pretty good fit, but it feels like kind of a stab in the dark for me. It's got better ability scores and variety of features than a centaur or ogre, but without the centaur's BAB or charge options, or the ogre's reach. The only good avenue for advancement that I can think of is a swordsage focusing on the Tiger Claw discipline: +8 Wis for the AC bonus, +8 Str for damage and maneuver save DCs, and you're only one maneuver level behind (but you'll probably know more 2nd-level maneuvers than usual for a swordsage).

Do you guys think I'm on par? Or would you go higher or lower?

Lans

2019-05-04, 06:39 PM

What if we let Derro count as having a flaw?

Blue Jay

2019-05-04, 06:46 PM

What if we let Derro count as having a flaw?

I don't know what that would achieve.

Lans

2019-05-05, 04:47 AM

I don't know what that would achieve.

It adds another lair of granularity between too weak at 3rd and too strong at 2nd.

liquidformat

2019-05-06, 11:06 AM

It adds another lair of granularity between too weak at 3rd and too strong at 2nd.

Can you go a bit more into detail? Are you saying madness count as a flaw. and thereby giving a bonus feat on top of its current function?

destrachan has me scratching my head. It has good ability scores and NA as Blue Jay points out, Destructive Harmonics is actually pretty good and versatile at its ecl but quickly falls off, its skill list is good for what it is but nothing amazing there, it strangely has 5' reach (why not 10') this isn't even touched upon in the fluff; its claws are undersized for a monster with only one natural weapon, blindsight is both a boon and a hindrance, protection from sonic is nice but not very relevant, lack of manipulators is a concern (could be argued either way on this one), and finally the text would suggest that destrachan is incapable of speaking rather than simply untrained.

I believe the designers meant for destrachan to be incapable of speech as its vocal cords are hyper 'evolved' to be used as weapons, and yet the advanced control they have with Destructive Harmonics should perhaps give them enough control to speak. Anyways given the 'If a destrachan must communicate, it does so through action.' it seems like drow sign language is reasonable and the pearl of speech or whatever it is called should also probably fix the issue.

Over all I think if we made the assumption that destrachan is a tool user and its Destructive Harmonics ability scaled both in dc and in damage for flesh and nerves along with ecl, I would be ok with keeping it at 8rhd. If no changes are made I am not sure there is a particularly good number of rhd that make it viable. Dropping rhd to 5 still leaves it 2 bab behind a full beatstick but now with such inflated ability scores that it dominates its peers. I think any adjustment of this monster requires some overhaul and not a simple adjustment of rhd.

Blue Jay

2019-05-07, 04:34 PM

Over all I think if we made the assumption that destrachan is a tool user and its Destructive Harmonics ability scaled both in dc and in damage for flesh and nerves along with ecl, I would be ok with keeping it at 8rhd. If no changes are made I am not sure there is a particularly good number of rhd that make it viable. Dropping rhd to 5 still leaves it 2 bab behind a full beatstick but now with such inflated ability scores that it dominates its peers. I think any adjustment of this monster requires some overhaul and not a simple adjustment of rhd.

I don't think it's that bad. The unicorn's ability scores are even more inflated than the destrachan's, and the unicorn was placed at ECL 5. I think a 4HD unicorn matches or even outclasses a 5HD destrachan as a beatstick (unless the destrachan is able to wield manufactured weapons).

liquidformat

2019-05-07, 06:53 PM

Lans

2019-05-08, 01:21 AM

Can you go a bit more into detail? Are you saying madness count as a flaw. and thereby giving a bonus feat on top of its current function?

I am arguing for the selection of Derro as an ECL 3 race to also count as a flaw, and thus giving a bonus feat if the campaign is using that variant.

I'm looking for a way to increase balance in cases where races are too good at X-1 ECL but too weak at X

Blue Jay

2019-05-08, 02:21 PM

I am arguing for the selection of Derro as an ECL 3 race to also count as a flaw, and thus giving a bonus feat if the campaign is using that variant.

I'm looking for a way to increase balance in cases where races are too good at X-1 ECL but too weak at X

Okay, so you think giving them a bonus feat is a way to make them unquestionably worth the 3 RHD, to help solve the ambiguity between 2 and 3 HD.

It makes sense. I'm not sure whether it's enough to get them there on its own, but it would be a good house rule.

For this thread, I think we should focus on altering racial Hit Dice, but maybe we can also keep a record of other suggested fixes somewhere too.

GreatWyrmGold

2019-05-08, 09:58 PM

I don't think it's that bad. The unicorn's ability scores are even more inflated than the destrachan's, and the unicorn was placed at ECL 5. I think a 4HD unicorn matches or even outclasses a 5HD destrachan as a beatstick (unless the destrachan is able to wield manufactured weapons).
...which is irrelevant, since the unicorn's ECL incorporates factors other than their pure beatstick potential (as should the destruchan's). The destruchan has at-will AoEs of an almost-never-resisted energy type and the ability to easily destroy most common materials, while the unicorn has a variety of immunities and SLAs (including a constant magic circle against evil).

Also, I keep wanting to call it Destru-chan. I don't know why, I haven't even been watching anime recently.

Blue Jay

2019-05-22, 01:12 PM

...which is irrelevant, since the unicorn's ECL incorporates factors other than their pure beatstick potential (as should the destruchan's). The destruchan has at-will AoEs of an almost-never-resisted energy type and the ability to easily destroy most common materials, while the unicorn has a variety of immunities and SLAs (including a constant magic circle against evil).

I mostly agree with you. I was directly responding to an argument that bloated ability scores belied efforts to set an ECL, and the unicorn was just an example of when bloated ability scores do not pose a serious issue.

So, do people like 5 RHD for the destrachan? Liquidformat was originally comfortable leaving them at 8 RHD (thus, LA +0), but I think it should have at least some taken off.

Maybe we can just push forward and see if that helps us keep the project alive?

Digester

A few people have commented on how stupid this monster looks. Personally, I think it's kind of adorable: if I played one of these, I would use one of those old Nerds candy creature for the character portrait:

http://ep.yimg.com/ay/stylinonline/nerds-grape-tank-top-dress-7.jpg

I think 8 RHD is why too many for this.

Medium aberration
+6 Str, +4 Dex, +6 Con, +2 Wis and animal-level Int
+5 natural armor
60-ft speed
one claw (1d8)
Acid Spray (20-ft cone) 4d8 acid (Ref halves)
Acid Stream (single-target, 5-ft range) 8d8 acid (Ref halves)
Skills: Hide (+4 racial), Jump (+4 racial), Listen, Spot
Miscellaneous: Scent, Immunity to acid

I'm thinking that that all might be worth 4 RHD. I don't like the 8d8 damage at 4th level, but that alone isn't a serious objection. The one claw is kind of annoying: why not let it have a sort of Leap thing ability, like the bulette gets, so it can jump and full attack?

Weapons for this are kind of not good. The acid attacks are okay, but one-dimensional. And it has no arms to wield weapons, and presumably no arms, hands or ring slots (that's probably negotiable, though). It could be hilarious fun if it could wield a manufactured weapon with its foot. Certainly a boot blade from Complete Scoundrel should work, but the natural claw actually does quite good damage for a Medium-size natural attack.

So, does anyone else vote different from 4 RHD for the Digester?

GreatWyrmGold

2019-05-22, 09:01 PM

8d8 damage, Reflex half, is really good for 4th level (even at melee range). The acid cone is pretty good, too; it's basically a souped-up (in every regard) burning hands. And it's usable every 1d4 rounds, rather than having limited uses like a spell.

The acid is awesome, but it doesn't have anything else; its only other innate ability is the rough equivalent of having both your hands tied to a longsword. This causes two big problems. First, the digester only gets to use its acid attacks once every couple of rounds; it's likely spending 60% of rounds making one claw attack. Second...8d6 damage to one target isn't always going to be impressive. I'd peg 5th level (where wizards can deal 5d6 damage to everything in a wide radius) to be the first great blow to the acid's impressiveness, and it's definitely obsolete by 7th (where a warlock can use unaugmented eldritch blasts to deal half as much damage as the acid, more than twice as often and at range). If the damage scaled or there was some class that let them improve it, it would have some staying power; as it is, it doesn't even qualify for metabreath feats. You basically need to start over from scratch; the digester has a decent chassis, but it's nothing incredible (especially since it's all but guaranteed to get one skill point per level).

A digester would make a good addition to a 5th-level party; its primary ability isn't quite up to par with 3rd-level spells, but it's much more spammable. But it would rapidly fall behind even unoptimized mid-tier characters, aside from its stunning lack of versatility, so 4 HD sounds good to me. (3 HD is too low; dealing an average of 14 damage to an adjacent creature who makes their save is a bit much for a level when bruisers have 30-50 HP and probably won't make the save.)

Lans

2019-05-23, 03:19 AM

I'm thinking that that all might be worth 4 RHD. I don't like the 8d8 damage at 4th level, but that alone isn't a serious objection. The one claw is kind of annoying: why not let it have a sort of Leap thing ability, like the bulette gets, so it can jump and full attack?

I assume that it will have at least 1 class level. So if it was 3HD then it would start at 4th level and the stream Would be comparable to A whirling frenzy barbarian or Imp trip+knockdown.

Blue Jay

2019-05-23, 10:58 AM

8d8 damage, Reflex half, is really good for 4th level (even at melee range). The acid cone is pretty good, too; it's basically a souped-up (in every regard) burning hands. And it's usable every 1d4 rounds, rather than having limited uses like a spell.

Yeah, the acid is the only thing the digester has going for it, but it's just so one-dimensional, and isn't even a breath weapon. The high speed is kind of nice too, but speed doesn't seem to be something people invest too heavily in.

If the damage scaled or there was some class that let them improve it, it would have some staying power...

You mean something like this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=23872857&postcount=39)? :smallcool:

A digester would make a good addition to a 5th-level party; its primary ability isn't quite up to par with 3rd-level spells, but it's much more spammable. But it would rapidly fall behind even unoptimized mid-tier characters, aside from its stunning lack of versatility, so 4 HD sounds good to me. (3 HD is too low; dealing an average of 14 damage to an adjacent creature who makes their save is a bit much for a level when bruisers have 30-50 HP and probably won't make the save.)

Okay, 2 votes for 4 RHD.

I assume that it will have at least 1 class level. So if it was 3HD then it would start at 4th level and the stream Would be comparable to A whirling frenzy barbarian or Imp trip+knockdown.

Why assume 1 class level? You can play it without class levels, just having its racial HD as "levels"?

Lans

2019-05-23, 11:55 AM

Yeah, the acid is the only thing the digester has going for it, but it's just so one-dimensional, and isn't even a breath weapon. The high speed is kind of nice too, but speed doesn't seem to be something people invest too heavily in.

Okay, 2 votes for 4 RHD.

Why assume 1 class level? You can play it without class levels, just having its racial HD as "levels"?

For a couple of reasons, even if it starts with 0 class levels it will eventually gain levels and should spend more time in with at least 1 class level. So I'm willing to let a bit of imbalance slide for a level. 2 It gives direction for growth, and alleviates front loadedness of classes.

OgresAreCute

2019-05-23, 12:22 PM

For a couple of reasons, even if it starts with 0 class levels it will eventually gain levels and should spend more time in with at least 1 class level. So I'm willing to let a bit of imbalance slide for a level. 2 It gives direction for growth, and alleviates front loadedness of classes.

The front-loadedness is important, especially for martials. A level 4 orc barbarian has comparable strength to an ogre with 4 HD, but the ogre pulls ahead immediately if it's a level 5 orc barbarian vs a level 1 ogre barbarian.

Blue Jay

2019-05-24, 02:10 PM

For a couple of reasons, even if it starts with 0 class levels it will eventually gain levels and should spend more time in with at least 1 class level. So I'm willing to let a bit of imbalance slide for a level.

I'm rather unenthusiastic about making future build assumptions, so I'd want to see a really substantial benefit to this before I'm willing to consider it; and I just don't see the benefit.

2 It gives direction for growth, and alleviates front loadedness of classes.

I'm not sure I see how this actually addresses front-loadedness. The front-loading issue comes up regardless of whether we decide on 3 RHD or 4 RHD; so ultimately, the only comparison that really matters is the comparison between 3 RHD and 4 RHD. And as long as your assumptions are the same for the two different RHD values, it doesn't really matter what character build you construct around them: you could use any build you want, as long as the builds you use for 3 RHD and 4 RHD are equivalent. So it seems like adding class levels is only making the comparison more complicated without actually accomplishing anything.

The front-loadedness is important, especially for martials. A level 4 orc barbarian has comparable strength to an ogre with 4 HD, but the ogre pulls ahead immediately if it's a level 5 orc barbarian vs a level 1 ogre barbarian.

Front-loadedness is only important if you assume nobody except the ogre will multiclass. The best way to address front-loadedness is to remove it from the equation entirely. You can do that by comparing "ogre 4 / barbarian 1" with various other "X 4 / barbarian 1" builds. When you approach it from that way, it's easy to see how ignoring class levels altogether makes sense, because if I'm comparing "ogre 4 / barbarian 1" with "orc warblade 4 / barbarian 1," I could achieve the same result by just comparing "ogre 4" with "orc warblade 4."

GreatWyrmGold

2019-05-25, 04:21 PM

You mean something like this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=23872857&postcount=39)? :smallcool:
Yeah, I guess. I've seen it before, but it doesn't have any relevance to this thread (unless you're just trying to advertise your homebrew).

I'm not sure I see how this actually addresses front-loadedness. The front-loading issue comes up regardless of whether we decide on 3 RHD or 4 RHD; so ultimately, the only comparison that really matters is the comparison between 3 RHD and 4 RHD. And as long as your assumptions are the same for the two different RHD values, it doesn't really matter what character build you construct around them: you could use any build you want, as long as the builds you use for 3 RHD and 4 RHD are equivalent. So it seems like adding class levels is only making the comparison more complicated without actually accomplishing anything.

Front-loadedness is only important if you assume nobody except the ogre will multiclass. The best way to address front-loadedness is to remove it from the equation entirely. You can do that by comparing "ogre 4 / barbarian 1" with various other "X 4 / barbarian 1" builds. When you approach it from that way, it's easy to see how ignoring class levels altogether makes sense, because if I'm comparing "ogre 4 / barbarian 1" with "orc warblade 4 / barbarian 1," I could achieve the same result by just comparing "ogre 4" with "orc warblade 4."
I don't think your stance is completely invalid, but I think it's less valid than the others'. A character with some class levels getting a new class doesn't increase in power as much as a character with no class levels getting their first class level. There's not a ton of overlap between Barb1 and Warb4, but there's more there than between Barb1 and Ogre4.

Blue Jay

2019-05-25, 08:28 PM

Yeah, I guess. I've seen it before, but it doesn't have any relevance to this thread (unless you're just trying to advertise your homebrew).

Well, when you're the guy who tried to make the homebrew that does X, you can't help but link when somebody mentions X. :smallredface:

I don't think your stance is completely invalid, but I think it's less valid than the others'. A character with some class levels getting a new class doesn't increase in power as much as a character with no class levels getting their first class level. There's not a ton of overlap between Barb1 and Warb4, but there's more there than between Barb1 and Ogre4.

Hm... I understand what you're saying, but it feels uncomfortably like a lack of faith in the Reassignment project. If one class level always boosts an ogre more than it boosts non-monster characters of equivalent level, then the only possible conclusion is that the ogre is consistently at a major deficit relative to 4 levels in any class. And that can only mean that 4 ogre hit dice are not equal to 4 class levels.

Blue Jay

2019-05-26, 01:29 PM

Digester

Okay, it sounds like 2 votes for 4 RHD, 1 for 3 RHD. Does Ogres want to put in a vote, too?

-----

Do y'all mind if I continue leading this thread? I guess martixy isn't going to keep it going, so maybe I'll just continue it from here. I suppose it would be better if I started a new thread, so I can keep a running index. I also worry that I'm not the best choice for a project leader, because I'm stubborn and not very dynamic.

Dinosaurs

I'll go ahead and express my thoughts on all of these, and if the thread participants elect a different leader, you can just take over here. The primary issue with most of these monsters is the hit-die bloat, but it's complicated a bit by having things like Huge size, which is something I'm not comfortable giving at low ECL. I think what I'll do is just start by lowering HD to match the listed CR, and use that as my starting point.

Elasmosaur
Swim speed, average Bite attack, low natural armor, big Str and Con, and that's it. Plus, it's an aquatic creature without the Aquatic subtype or even Hold Breath. At least it can function out of the water with a 20-foot land speed. In my mind, it's sort of like a one-headed hydra with no Fast Healing. That doesn't seem entirely consistent with the actual Elasmosaurus: if I had been trying to build the real ancient reptile (not actually a dinosaur), I would have given it an unusually long reach as the first priority; but that's neither here nor there.

How does the elasmosaur work at 7 RHD? That ability-score boosts are pretty good there, and Huge size is nice; but it still kind of sucks. Maybe 5 HD for Elasmosaur is better?

Megaraptor
A big deinonychus with CR 6, so let's use 6 RHD as the starting point. Does it work at 6 RHD? The Project thought the deinonychus was balanced at 4 RHD, so do we think the +2 Str, +2 Con, +2 Wis and Large size are worth another 2 HD? I kind of think it does, though it is on the low side.

Oddly, on the Weapon Size chart, the deinonychus' 2d4 bite attack should have sized up to 2d6; but the megaraptor's bite is actually 1d8; not exactly a downgrade, but at best it's a "sidegrade."

So, I think I'll propose 6 RHD for the Megaraptor.

Triceratops
My favorite dinosaur. Huge again, about +30 on stats (before accounting for the Int penalty), with one average natural weapon, surprisingly below-standard natural armor, Powerful Charge (which isn't explicitly stated as double damage, but I think it's safe to assume), and Trample with a non-standard damage formula.

So, starting at HD = CR = 9, is the triceratops worth 9 RHD? I would probably be happy to play it at 9 RHD, but that's likely mainly because "favorite dinosaur." It could obviously make a good uber-charger with a few class levels; but it really can't do much else. I'd personally probably want to play it as a defensive character like a Knight or Devoted Defender, and I would have built in some kind of Defensive Stance ability; but general consensus is that that type of character isn't very optimal. I think I could rationalize dropping it to 7 RHD for the Triceratops (same ECL as a 5-headed hydra), but it feels a bit self-serving.

Tyrannosaurus
Every else's favorite dinosaur. WotC apparently bought into the "hunter" side of the debate and rejected the "scavenger" side: it's got a nice, big bite attack with Improved Grab and Swallow Whole, disappointingly low natural armor, a bit of a speed boost, +34 on ability scores (before Int penalty), and... I guess that's all. On the whole, I'd say it's pretty much on par with triceratops, though its abilities are disappointingly not very well suited to a one-on-one battle with a triceratops (which would actually be a depressingly dull fight with D&D mechanics, anyway).

CR 8, so is 8 RHD a good fit for the Tyrannosaurus? Maybe I'll just vote for 7 RHD for the Tyrannosaurus, so triceratops and tyrannosaur can be on the same level.

GreatWyrmGold

2019-05-26, 11:45 PM

Well, when you're the guy who tried to make the homebrew that does X, you can't help but link when somebody mentions X. :smallredface:
Fair enough.

Hm... I understand what you're saying, but it feels uncomfortably like a lack of faith in the Reassignment project. If one class level always boosts an ogre more than it boosts non-monster characters of equivalent level, then the only possible conclusion is that the ogre is consistently at a major deficit relative to 4 levels in any class. And that can only mean that 4 ogre hit dice are not equal to 4 class levels.
If, for the sake of argument, an Ogre 4/Barb X is approximately equivalent to a Barb (X+4) for all valid values of X except 0, I find it hard to argue that four ogre hit dice (plus ogre racial features) should not be treated as roughly equivalent to four class levels. Sure, an Ogre 4 might be more akin to a Barbarian 3, but is balancing that one level really worth unbalancing the other 16?
I'm not looking at this as a question of whether a straight monster would be balanced against a character of equal ECL at that level alone; I'm looking at this as a question of whether a monster PC in general would be balanced against characters of equal ECL. And yeah, power curves are erratic things (especially with classes as frontloaded as they are in 3.5), but we can't solve that by ignoring level-ups.

The frontloaded nature of classes in D&D does give us a slightly better bad solution. Monster M/Wtvr 1 vs. Wtvr M+1 seems like the best quick-and-dirty comparison, because you're comparing a monster with most of the core features of whatever class they're progressing in (albeit at smaller numbers) versus what someone in that class could become by staying in the class.
Of course, this does presuppose a low-optimization environment, but defining level adjustment for a high-op environment is nigh impossible. I don't want to get bogged down in this particular patch of weeds, so I'll just list the three big problems that come to mind first: It's harder to define "high optimization" than "low optimization" (the optimization floor is more solid than the ceiling); higher levels of optimization lead to increasing ease of simply breaking the game (which no prebuilt set of stats and abilities is going to do, short of limitless spawn or wish SLAs or a sarukh or something); and how D&D's fragile sense of balance is broken over its knee at even the near end of high-op character creation (because spellcasters gain more from optimization than martial characters).

I would also like to note that, as a rule, the inflexible nature of high-ECL monsters (you can't choose to stop taking a "monster class" halfway through and pick up some factorum levels, whether the monster class is figurative or literal, and with few exceptions you don't get to customize their monstrous abilities) makes them much harder to optimize than low-ECL monsters, which are harder to optimize than standard-level races. The higher up the optimization tree you go, the worse monster PCs will look by comparison.

Do y'all mind if I continue leading this thread?
As long as martixy doesn't object.

I'll go ahead and express my thoughts on all of these [dinosaurs]...
The only way to balance pure beatsticks like most animals is to compare their numbers to that of martial characters, because numbers are basically all they have. (Then maybe knock off a level or two, because martial classes give PCs a little more than raw numbers.) But those numbers change a lot when you remove as many HD as you need to make big beatsticks viable, and...well, I'm just not motivated enough to do that for this project.

Blue Jay

2019-05-27, 01:06 PM

I'm not looking at this as a question of whether a straight monster would be balanced against a character of equal ECL at that level alone; I'm looking at this as a question of whether a monster PC in general would be balanced against characters of equal ECL. And yeah, power curves are erratic things (especially with classes as frontloaded as they are in 3.5), but we can't solve that by ignoring level-ups.

I think I've lost track of your argument here. I don't think comparing to a straight-class progression is a good way to evaluate the monster hit dice across the entire 20-level progression. See, to me, the idea is to evaluate the monster as a component of a build, not as an entire build. So, think of ogre as a 4-level dip. Surely it makes the most sense to compare it to other 4-level dips, doesn't it? That way, you're comparing apples to apples, rather than comparing a 4-level class with a 20-level class.

See, I would argue that using the quick-and-dirty comparison you're advocating is precisely what creates the front-loading issue. Ogre itself is front-loaded in a sense, because it gives all of its abilities in the first 4 levels, and then gives nothing after 4th level. So, when you compare "monster+1" to a single-class reference build, you're effectively mandating that there's a front-loading issue, because the monster progression will always have two sets of front-loaded abilities, while your reference build will have only one.

It's perhaps easier to see that with a monster that advances by racial hit dice, like the digester. The stat block allows for a digester to have as many as 24 racial hit dice, so you could hypothetically single-class digester all the way into epic. But, you've acquired all the best bits of the digester "class" by 8th level, and the other 16 levels give nothing except growth to Large size. Now, on this thread, we're saying that the stuff you get in those first 8 RHD of digester is actually only worth something like 3 or 4 RHD, which means you're only getting noteworthy abilities in the first 15-20% of the class, and the rest is basically dead levels.

So, if your reference point is Barbarian 20 or Dragonfire Adept 20 or Warblade 20, then an apples-to-apples comparison would be Digester 20. Digester 4 / XXX 16 is not an apples-to-apples comparison.

The only way to balance pure beatsticks like most animals is to compare their numbers to that of martial characters, because numbers are basically all they have. (Then maybe knock off a level or two, because martial classes give PCs a little more than raw numbers.) But those numbers change a lot when you remove as many HD as you need to make big beatsticks viable, and...well, I'm just not motivated enough to do that for this project.

Yeah, I suppose you're right. Groan!

So you're saying I should find the levels of triceratops and fighter that have equivalent numbers, then knock a few levels off of triceratops to account for the feats, proficiencies and skill points? I'm kind of stuck at home babysittting the kids today, and I'm bored, so maybe I'll give it a try in a little bit.

Blue Jay

2019-05-27, 04:12 PM

Well, as predicted, I was incredibly bored today, and number-crunching actually sounded king of interesting. So I did some comparisons between triceratops and a vanilla half-orc fighter. Both were built with the same 32-point buy (18-10-16-10-10-8), similar gear purchases and basic attack-boosting feats (Power Attack and Powerful Charge). The half-orc had a greatsword and full-plate, and used its fighter feats on Weapon Focus line of feats, along with Leap Attack, Greater Powerful Charge, Improved Critical and Shock Trooper; while the triceratops had a necklace of natural weapons and full-plate barding. The extra cost of the triceratops' barding and the cost of an awaken spell meant that the half-orc could get a +2 equivalent on its sword by 8th level, so I added keen.

Here's a quick summary:
Triceratops
AC 27, 99 hp
Str 41 (18 point-buy, +20 racial, +1 4th level, +2 enhancement)
Con 30 (16 point-buy, +14 racial)
+1 gore +19 melee (3d8+23) -> +15 Str, +7 "two-handed", +1 enhancement
DPR: 36.4 (95% hit chance vs AC 18, 5% crit chance)

Charging, PA +5/-10 (85% hit chance)
DPR: 68.3 (double base damage, +10 PA, +10.5 Powerful Charge)

Half-Orc
AC 19, 64 hp
Str 23 (18 point-buy, +2 racial, +1 4th level, +2 enhancement)
Con 16 (16 point-buy)
+1 greatsword +17 melee (2d6+12) -> +6 Str, +3 two-handed, +2 Wpn Spec, +1 enhancement
DPR: 35.5 (95% hit chance vs AC 18, 75% on 2nd iterative, 10% crit chance)

Charging, PA +5/-10 (Shock Trooper -> 95%/75% hit chance)
DPR: 69.7 (+10 PA, +10 Leap, +3.5 Powerful Charge on 1st iterative)

Triceratops
AC 27, 128 hp
Str 44 (18 point-buy, +20 racial, +2 levels, +4 enhancement)
Con 30 (16 point-buy, +14 racial)
+1 gore +23 melee (3d8+26) -> +17 Str, +8 "two-handed", +1 enhancement
DPR: 39.4 (95% hit chance vs AC 21, 5% crit chance)

Charging, PA +5/-10 (90% hit chance)
DPR: 75.3 (double base damage, +10 PA, +10.5 Powerful Charge)

Half-Orc
AC 19, 90 hp
Str 26 (18 point-buy, +2 racial, +2 levels, +4 enhancement)
Con 18 (16 point-buy, +2 enhancement)
+1 greatsword +19 melee (2d6+15) -> +8 Str, +4 two-handed, +2 Wpn Spec, +1 enhancement
DPR: 43.6 (95% hit chance vs AC 18, 70% on 2nd iterative, 20% crit chance)

Charging, PA +5/-10 (Shock Trooper -> 95%/70% hit chance)
DPR: 76.3 (+10 PA, +10 Leap, +7 Powerful Charge on 1st iterative)

The triceratops clearly has better defenses, with AC 27, A Con mod of +10, and a Good Fort & Ref, and it looks like the vanilla damage output lines up pretty well at either 7th or 9th level. With the added benefits of size and reach, and recognizing that I covertly assumed the half-orc has Pounce, the triceratops seems like a clear winner here.

Of course, the straight-class character has 9 levels of added build freedom relative to the triceratops, so he could have optimized to a much higher degree than this, while the triceratops doesn't have as much room to grow from here.

Triceratops is obviously a good premade charger and meatshield that you can make potent with minimal optimization, but there's not much else you can do with it. After this evaluation, I think maybe I will stick with 7 RHD for triceratops. That damage output is higher than I personally prefer to see at this level, but a Whirling Frenzy barbarian could outdo it, and a multiclassed character or initiator would be more versatile.

GreatWyrmGold

2019-05-27, 04:27 PM

Lans

2019-05-27, 06:35 PM

I think part of the problem is comparatively unbalanced choices available to classes. Barbarian 1 can give pounce and whirling frenzy which are about as good as the next 19 levels of barbarian. Warblade gets a third level manuever that if it was 9th I don't think any body would consider under powered.

Blue Jay

2019-05-27, 06:36 PM

I am suggesting evaluating the ogre as part of a build...in an ideal world. Ideally, we'd be able to evaluate how the ogre fits into multiple builds, from straight-class barbarian to an optimized damage-dealer, and see how the ogre compares to a normal race at each level.

But you can't do that, can you? You need to pick a single comparison point, ideally one near the lowest possible level you could play the monster at (because most games don't reach 20th level, or anywhere near it).

Okay, the difference between our methods isn't that you've picked a single comparison point, and I haven't. I have picked a single comparison point. My comparison point is 0 class levels on the monster side: Monster X vs Class X. I believe that this comparison point is the best comparison point because it doesn't shoehorn either the monster or the reference build into any particular future progression, and it does a better job of controlling for extraneous variables that can potentially confound the analysis, such as build complexity.

Lans' method is basically comparing a multiclass character (Monster X / Class 1) to a single-class character (Class X+1). So it's increasing the complexity of the comparison: anytime you see a difference between the two characters, the root cause of that difference may be because of the abilities of the Monster or the Class, or it may be because of multiclassing itself. Multiclassing itself exacerbates front-loadedness, so in trying to control for front-loading, Lans has actually created the frontloading issue.

With my method, you don't introduce any extraneous variables that confound your analysis, and you don't make extra work for yourself by adding additional build components. You're just comparing a monster straight-up with an ostensibly equivalent options. For example, ogre hit dice fill a similar role in a build to fighter levels or barbarian levels, so you can simply pick any martial build you want, and decide whether that build benefits more from 4 levels of ogre or 4 levels of fighter. The best reference build is usually the simplest, so why not use 0 other levels?

Also, I'm not suggesting that you have to go through the rigamarole of recalculating stats to evaluate the dinosaurs, I'm just saying I wouldn't want to evaluate unless I did so. So I'm not going to evaluate the dinosaurs, so I'm not going to complain about your evaluations.

I know. I just had the time and enough interest in fiddling with numbers to do it anyway.

GreatWyrmGold

2019-05-28, 03:21 PM

You don't add any irrelevant variables to the comparison, but you also leave out relevant variables. The simplest method isn't always the best.

Blue Jay

2019-05-28, 03:31 PM

Okay, I've just realized that the debate I'm perpetuating here isn't that important, so I'm just going to drop it. I'm sorry for the attempted "thought control."

The project will likely benefit from different posters approaching the ratings from different perspectives; so everyone should feel free to "vote their conscience" on these things, and not have to subscribe to a specific methodology. Inevitability has done an incredible job of facilitating that kind of discussion, and I think that's why the Reassignment project has been so fruitful: I have a lot to learn about how to do that right, but until someone better than me steps up, I'll take it on myself to continue the ratings in a new thread, so I can maintain an archive/index in the opening post.