AvatarVecna
2020-07-06, 07:02 PM
Winterwight - ECL 25
Winterwight - ECL 32
Hit Dice: 32d12 (208 HP)
Oh okay, the column in that table says "ECL", but it probably actually means level adjustment.
For instance, a winterwight with a level adjustment of +25 who is also a 1st-level sorcerer has an ECL of 26.
...
For instance, a winterwight 1st-level sorcerer/3rd-level rogue has an ECL of 29 (level adjustment of 25 for being a winterwight, +4 for character level).
This is corroborating evidence that they had no idea what they were doing.
Honestly, this barely matters.
Text trumps table, but only a couple places in the ELH specify Level Adjustment directly (the text that uses Winterwight as an example, and then the Mercane Description explicitly says LA +7, which doesn't square with 5 HD and the table saying ECL 7). Any other monster, as far as the rules are concerned, their ECL is as listed in the table, even though there's good evidence that column was meant to be labeled "Level Adjustment" and WotC is just bad at games. So RAW, the table is still valid (except for those two specific monsters). RAI, a DM would probably use that column in the table as the LA, as it seems was the intention. But the LA for such creatures is so high that it's basically not worth playing on either side of the screen, and anyway what DM actually runs epic, and is willing to allow monster PCs at all (let alone epic monster PCs), who isn't also making pretty sweeping changes to how things go in order to keep the game balanced?
But if you're the kind of person to whom this might matter, then let's just say that based on the above quotes, it seems likely that the actual LA for the paragon template was intended to be +19? Maybe?
Winterwight - ECL 32
Hit Dice: 32d12 (208 HP)
Oh okay, the column in that table says "ECL", but it probably actually means level adjustment.
For instance, a winterwight with a level adjustment of +25 who is also a 1st-level sorcerer has an ECL of 26.
...
For instance, a winterwight 1st-level sorcerer/3rd-level rogue has an ECL of 29 (level adjustment of 25 for being a winterwight, +4 for character level).
This is corroborating evidence that they had no idea what they were doing.
Honestly, this barely matters.
Text trumps table, but only a couple places in the ELH specify Level Adjustment directly (the text that uses Winterwight as an example, and then the Mercane Description explicitly says LA +7, which doesn't square with 5 HD and the table saying ECL 7). Any other monster, as far as the rules are concerned, their ECL is as listed in the table, even though there's good evidence that column was meant to be labeled "Level Adjustment" and WotC is just bad at games. So RAW, the table is still valid (except for those two specific monsters). RAI, a DM would probably use that column in the table as the LA, as it seems was the intention. But the LA for such creatures is so high that it's basically not worth playing on either side of the screen, and anyway what DM actually runs epic, and is willing to allow monster PCs at all (let alone epic monster PCs), who isn't also making pretty sweeping changes to how things go in order to keep the game balanced?
But if you're the kind of person to whom this might matter, then let's just say that based on the above quotes, it seems likely that the actual LA for the paragon template was intended to be +19? Maybe?