Should I use the "Reducing Level Adjustments" variant?

[Trandir]

As the title asks.

Edit:
Well apparently the answer is "yes but that still isn't great".

So it is only natural to ask "what would be a good way to deal with LA races and templates without making them broken nor detrimental for most builds"?

[GrayDeath]

Unless your Group and World are very low OP, I dont see a reason why not.

Actually even with Buyoff larger LA values are doing more harm than help except for very specific builds.

[NigelWalmsley]

You should probably just work with your players to figure out what the appropriate way of handling the monster to PC conversion for whatever they want to play is. Printed LAs are all over the map, and there isn't a straightforwardly correct way of fixing that. Since this is something that is going to come up a single-digit number of times in the campaign, it's best to tailor the fix to the particulars of your game.

[Thurbane]

I've used that option in my games, and it has worked out quite well. Admittedly, each time it was with LA +1 races (Aasimar and Catfolk), so not sure how it goes with higher LA adjustments.

[NigelWalmsley]

It doesn't work great. There's basically no LA in the game that is actually "worth it" from a power perspective, so any time you have LA you're getting screwed. +1s break even fast enough that you spend a decent chunk of even relatively short games at parity, but with even a +2 you're not eligible to reduce at all until the party hits 8th level and you're not paid off until 10th (modulo XP math I have not actually done, but those are the minimums). That's late enough in the game that it's not going to be feasible.

[Troacctid]

I would recommend against using it. It's not very well written or well balanced, IMO. And honestly, what problem is it solving? Like, what's the goal with it? To improve overall game balance? Because it doesn't really do that.

[Thurbane]

Wait wait, all the negative replies have got me wondering: are we talking about LA buyoff, or something else?

[Trandir]

Wait wait, all the negative replies have got me wondering: are we talking about LA buyoff, or something else?

I think I am talking about that. Maybe I messed up tho

[Crake]

Wait wait, all the negative replies have got me wondering: are we talking about LA buyoff, or something else?

I'll be honest, I was a little surprised at the sentiment as well, the playground has always historically been quite in favour of LA buyoff, though I would echo the sentiment that I don't personally like it. I use a different homebrew system that allows for optional gestalting of LA and class levels instead.

[NigelWalmsley]

It's not a terrible rule, it just only really works for +1 LA stuff, and those can largely be ignored. But larger amounts of LA don't get bought off fast enough, and often come with racial hit dice that don't get bought off at all. A Fire Giant is CR 10, making roughly equivalent to a 10th level character. But even if it had 0 LA, we'd still be expected to treat it as a 15th level character because of its racial hit dice.

[unseenmage]

I'll be honest, I was a little surprised at the sentiment as well, the playground has always historically been quite in favour of LA buyoff, though I would echo the sentiment that I don't personally like it. I use a different homebrew system that allows for optional gestalting of LA and class levels instead.
That might be the issue actually. Perhaps the Playground WAS historically in favor of LA Buyoff but all were so dissatisfied by the poor job it did at doing what it said it was supposed to do that we all.koved on to more elegant solutions.

Our table jut uses the PF rules for CR = ECL. Its ample and fairly straightforward and we play at such a high optimisation level anyway that what rough edges it has are to us features rather than bugs.

[lylsyly]

The way our table does it you can do LA+3 (the highest we allow) and buy it off at levels 3, 6, and 9. Of course being this easy we are always taking templates/races ;-).

[Doctor Despair]

The way our table does it you can do LA+3 (the highest we allow) and buy it off at levels 3, 6, and 9. Of course being this easy we are always taking templates/races ;-).

I mean, LA+3 can be bought off pre-epic regardless. For casters, anything more than LA+1 is probably sub-optimal for buy-off rules, but martials can get away with higher ones. Likewise, what's the alternative by RAW? LA just sticks to you forever? That makes it even more sub-optimal for everyone. I enjoy encouraging folks to take races and templates with LA without punishing them too much for doing so. So to answer OP: yes, I'd suggest using it.

With that said, I can definitely see not using the LA system as written if you have an alternative homebrew solution in mind. Thr quoted solution seems more lenient, but I'd personally like it. Casters still won't want high LA, but again, martials might partake. Martials need more nice things.

[Rebel7284]

LA is a poorly thought out system to begin with. With all of its imperfection, LA buyoff moves the needle in the right direction. If you can come up with a better system, go for it, but in my eyes, LA buyoff is better than no LA buyoff.

[Unavenger]

LA is a poorly thought out system to begin with. With all of its imperfection, LA buyoff moves the needle in the right direction. If you can come up with a better system, go for it, but in my eyes, LA buyoff is better than no LA buyoff.

Yeah, this. If you have a choice between "Do this" and "Do something better" then do something better, but if you're sizing up "Do this" and "Don't do this" then do this.

[Crake]

Our table jut uses the PF rules for CR = ECL. Its ample and fairly straightforward and we play at such a high optimisation level anyway that what rough edges it has are to us features rather than bugs.

that itself however can result in some borkiness when you run into creatures that have things way above their now ecl. Ghaele are a prime example of CR10, but with 12th level cleric casting, but in other cases, you get monsters with absurd amounts of HD resulting in tremendous saves and huge BAB, while having a relatively low CR

I personally understand the need to have an LA higher than CR, because remember, CR is meant to judge how difficult something is in a single encounter, and there are abilities that are far more useful over the course of a campaign than they are in a single encounter. The issue however, is that this penalty generally hampers regular character progression, which is why I personally think gestalting high LA/RHD classes with character levels is the most elegant solution, as you don't run into the issue of stacking tonns upon tonnes of HD onto one character, or having none at all (in the case of high RHD/LA respectively), and class progression remains on course at a reasonable rate, rather than being stuck at like, level 15 with just 2 class levels.

[Greymane]

LA is a poorly thought out system to begin with. With all of its imperfection, LA buyoff moves the needle in the right direction. If you can come up with a better system, go for it, but in my eyes, LA buyoff is better than no LA buyoff.


Yeah, this. If you have a choice between "Do this" and "Do something better" then do something better, but if you're sizing up "Do this" and "Don't do this" then do this.

Yeah, I'll echo these guys. LA Buy-off is imperfect, but better than nothing.


Wait wait, all the negative replies have got me wondering: are we talking about LA buyoff, or something else?


I'll be honest, I was a little surprised at the sentiment as well, the playground has always historically been quite in favour of LA buyoff, though I would echo the sentiment that I don't personally like it. I use a different homebrew system that allows for optional gestalting of LA and class levels instead.

I'm a little confused as well.

My home games do somethings similar to Crake at times too, depending on who is GMing. LA is a wonky system when you have Vamps at +8 and Lolth-touched and Mineral Warrior at +1. If you have the time and inclination, I'd recommend making a system that works for you and your group.

[NigelWalmsley]

that itself however can result in some borkiness when you run into creatures that have things way above their now ecl. Ghaele are a prime example of CR10, but with 12th level cleric casting, but in other cases, you get monsters with absurd amounts of HD resulting in tremendous saves and huge BAB, while having a relatively low CR

I mean, in fairness, if you've got 12th level Cleric casting and are CR 10, that's clearly a problem on it's own, because a 12th level Cleric is already CR 12 and you've presumably got some extra stuff on account of being an outsider. I think ECL=CR is generally a better baseline to work from than the LA/RHD setup proposed by 3.5, but as noted I think this is a case where the best solution is just to wing it.

[Darg]

I don't see the problem with level adjustment other than HD inequalities and I solve that by simply giving them the missing HD (just HP) at the appropriate "phantom" levels. If we play to high levels they pay from the remaining pool near 20. Overall I find LA not much of a problem as long as you don't play high optimization.

[Trandir]

It looks like the question has been answered. Then what would be a better way to handle LA than what wizard gave us?

[NigelWalmsley]

The best way to do it would be for players to pay for their monster abilities out of some resource pool. So being a Werewolf would be like you had taken a "turns into a wolf" subclass, or bought a Cloak of the Wolf that turned you into a wolf, or spent a feat on Can Turn Into a Wolf. If you mean something that you can do with the things that exist now, I think the best solution is CR = ECL, plus some tweaks for the cases where that really falls apart. The reality is that it's actually pretty rare for monsters to have abilities that are radically inappropriate for PCs, and in many of those cases the monsters aren't suitable as PCs anyway because they aren't intelligent (wolves), don't have hands (manticores), or are under the direct control of a powerful Wizard (golems).

[Remuko]

It looks like the question has been answered. Then what would be a better way to handle LA than what wizard gave us?

Use the LA reassignment threads LA values instead of the ones in the books. That helps a lot.

[Crake]

The best way to do it would be for players to pay for their monster abilities out of some resource pool. So being a Werewolf would be like you had taken a "turns into a wolf" subclass, or bought a Cloak of the Wolf that turned you into a wolf, or spent a feat on Can Turn Into a Wolf. If you mean something that you can do with the things that exist now, I think the best solution is CR = ECL, plus some tweaks for the cases where that really falls apart. The reality is that it's actually pretty rare for monsters to have abilities that are radically inappropriate for PCs, and in many of those cases the monsters aren't suitable as PCs anyway because they aren't intelligent (wolves), don't have hands (manticores), or are under the direct control of a powerful Wizard (golems).

you're basically just describing savage progressions

[NigelWalmsley]

you're basically just describing savage progressions

Not quite. This would in parallel to your class progression, not replacing it. Which solves the big problem savage progressions had of not leaving you with anywhere effective to go after you finished. So instead of being a Werewolf leaving you 5 levels behind in your class (which is a variable and scaling cost that increases in impact as the game goes on), it would just cost some fixed amount of wealth or feats or whatever in exchange for the fixed benefits you got.

[Crake]

Not quite. This would in parallel to your class progression, not replacing it. Which solves the big problem savage progressions had of not leaving you with anywhere effective to go after you finished. So instead of being a Werewolf leaving you 5 levels behind in your class (which is a variable and scaling cost that increases in impact as the game goes on), it would just cost some fixed amount of wealth or feats or whatever in exchange for the fixed benefits you got.

so kinda like location feats, how they count as X amount of gold toward your wealth by level?

[NigelWalmsley]

so kinda like location feats, how they count as X amount of gold toward your wealth by level?

Basically, yeah. Or just actual feats. So to be a Werewolf you need to be at least 3rd level, because you have to take Blessed By The Moon and Wolf Form. I'm not completely certain what resource it would be ideal to charge, and doing it would be such a huge effort that I'd probably only go to the trouble if I was setting up a whole new system.

[Crake]

Basically, yeah. Or just actual feats. So to be a Werewolf you need to be at least 3rd level, because you have to take Blessed By The Moon and Wolf Form. I'm not completely certain what resource it would be ideal to charge, and doing it would be such a huge effort that I'd probably only go to the trouble if I was setting up a whole new system.

ooorrrr.... Get this: An optional gestalt system, and you just take the savage progression on your gestalt side :smalltongue:

[Troacctid]

LA buyoff isn't any better than the base system. It's an awkward "fix" that doesn't solve any problems or accomplish anything meaningful. It makes the good LA +1 races better and the bad LA +0 races worse. Meanwhile, the bad LA +1 races are still bad, and the LA +2 or higher races are still unplayable. All you're doing is shuffling furniture around, making some things more balanced and some things less balanced, and the overall balance isn't improved.

Terrible rule, do not recommend.

You should use savage progressions instead. Savage progressions are legit.

[NigelWalmsley]

ooorrrr.... Get this: An optional gestalt system, and you just take the savage progression on your gestalt side :smalltongue:

It seems like that would either have the same problems as regular savage progression (if everyone gestalts), or make taking a savage progression strictly correct. Also it doesn't solve the issue that the levels the game says you should get to be an Ogre or a Fire Giant are just way too large. Like, yeah, it's better if a Fire Giant is a playable 19th level character, but it's still fundamentally dumb for a 10th level monster to be a 19th level character.

[Crake]

It seems like that would either have the same problems as regular savage progression (if everyone gestalts), or make taking a savage progression strictly correct. Also it doesn't solve the issue that the levels the game says you should get to be an Ogre or a Fire Giant are just way too large. Like, yeah, it's better if a Fire Giant is a playable 19th level character, but it's still fundamentally dumb for a 10th level monster to be a 19th level character.

Well, some monsters are just so far out of balance that you basically just have to re-work them entirely. I had a player that wanted to play a frostwind virago for example. Using CR=ECL, they would be ECL 16 with 30 HD. I instead recreated a 16 level savage progression that could be gestalted alongside class levels for a good effect. Sometimes you just gotta tear the whole thing down and do it again yourself.

[Efrate]

If you do not play gestalt though that falls apart for everyone who did not gestalt. Bob the fighter 18 is in every conceivable way worse than jane the fighter 18 with 18 levels frostwind virago on a side of gestalt.

CR = ECL with tweaks for problems (generally casting above HD) is just better assuming a moderate op group. BAB and saves are a bit lopsided but you play by ear it should work out fine.

Alternately use the ecl adjustment threads here with or without buy off and you will be pretty good compared to everyone else who doesnt want to go crazy and be a base race and class.

[NigelWalmsley]

Well, some monsters are just so far out of balance that you basically just have to re-work them entirely. I had a player that wanted to play a frostwind virago for example. Using CR=ECL, they would be ECL 16 with 30 HD.

I don't understand how that's really an issue. Hit dice don't really do much of anything. Having 30 Fey hit dice doesn't even give you a better BAB than a 16th level Fighter. It's not clear to me that such a thing is inherently problematic, particularly by the standards of "things you could do as a 16th level character".


If you do not play gestalt though that falls apart for everyone who did not gestalt. Bob the fighter 18 is in every conceivable way worse than jane the fighter 18 with 18 levels frostwind virago on a side of gestalt.

That's my issue. It seems like if you're allowed to gestalt in a monster race, everyone should do that. I'm not necessarily opposed to that, because I think having everyone be some kind of monster is kinda cool, but it doesn't seem like it solves the balance issue so much as reversing it.


Alternately use the ecl adjustment threads here with or without buy off and you will be pretty good compared to everyone else who doesnt want to go crazy and be a base race and class.

Doesn't that still have issues with progression? Imagine that you're a Fire Giant. We can fix things so that "being a Fire Giant" happens at a level where it isn't a total joke. But what do you do after that point? If you pick up a base class, you're starting over at 1st level when the rest of the party is getting toys like Acid Fog and Finger of Death. You could pick up a PrC, but I'm not sure that's really better. Most of the good PrCs are either good because they progress your base class, or good because they give you totally arbitrary fast progression abilities. Our Fire Giant is probably in a healthier place than a 10th level Fighter as a 10th level character (what with definitionally having numbers that are comparable to 10th level bruiser monsters), but he's still stuck trying to make his way in the world as a Fighter type in the back half of the game, and we all know that doesn't work out well.

[Crake]

If you do not play gestalt though that falls apart for everyone who did not gestalt. Bob the fighter 18 is in every conceivable way worse than jane the fighter 18 with 18 levels frostwind virago on a side of gestalt.

CR = ECL with tweaks for problems (generally casting above HD) is just better assuming a moderate op group. BAB and saves are a bit lopsided but you play by ear it should work out fine.

Alternately use the ecl adjustment threads here with or without buy off and you will be pretty good compared to everyone else who doesnt want to go crazy and be a base race and class.

Ideally an optional gestalt system, being optional, would mean that it would have some kind of trade off. In the system I run, each gestalt level costs half the xp of a regular level, which, while it it sounds like a lot, turns out to not really be that much. In my playtesting I've found that, comparing to a standard dual progression build, it ends up in approximately the same position by the end game (being about 3 levels behind), but is far more accessible in the early game, starting off barely behind at all.


I don't understand how that's really an issue. Hit dice don't really do much of anything. Having 30 Fey hit dice doesn't even give you a better BAB than a 16th level Fighter. It's not clear to me that such a thing is inherently problematic, particularly by the standards of "things you could do as a 16th level character".

Well, firstly, 30 HD is a LOT of feats, an sure, it doesn't give better bab than a 16th level fighter, but it does give insane will and reflex saves, and even the fort save is on par with a 16th level fighter, not to mention that anything that has it's save determined by HD is suddenly being treated as if it were a 15th level spell. Sufficed to say, having 30HD certainly throws a lot of the math out of whack, and it can be way worse for other creature types.

[Troacctid]

I don't understand how that's really an issue. Hit dice don't really do much of anything. Having 30 Fey hit dice doesn't even give you a better BAB than a 16th level Fighter. It's not clear to me that such a thing is inherently problematic, particularly by the standards of "things you could do as a 16th level character".
For real? You're gonna sit there and say an extra +1 to hit is more relevant than +5 feats, +120 HP, +350 skill points, +14 skill rank cap, +4-ish to all ability scores, and making all your attacks against touch AC? This isn't a serious argument, is it?

[NigelWalmsley]

Well, firstly, 30 HD is a LOT of feats, an sure, it doesn't give better bab than a 16th level fighter, but it does give insane will and reflex saves, and even the fort save is on par with a 16th level fighter, not to mention that anything that has it's save determined by HD is suddenly being treated as if it were a 15th level spell.

It's ten feats. It's actually less feats than a Fighter of that level would have, and it's pretty much the same pool, because the Virago doesn't meet the pre-reqs for the feats people get excited about due to its total lack of class features. You get great saves, but so does a Sorcadin or something. Hit dice just derive into a bunch of characteristics, and for the most part characters have ways to get those things from class features as well.


Sufficed to say, having 30HD certainly throws a lot of the math out of whack, and it can be way worse for other creature types.

It's worse for other types, but they don't have such lopsided HD/CR ratios. Outsider HD are totally sweet, but a CR 14 Trumpet Archon only gets 12 of them.


For real? You're gonna sit there and say an extra +1 to hit is more relevant than +5 feats, +120 HP, +350 skill points, +14 skill rank cap, +4-ish to all ability scores, and making all your attacks against touch AC? This isn't a serious argument, is it?

No, because that's not remotely what I said. I said having 30 HD is not a big concern, not that Frostwind Virago is worse than Fighter. Like, you get +14 to your skills. Who cares? Most skills don't really care about an extra +14 at 16th level, and for the ones that do you'd be better of as a dedicated specialist because the bonuses you can stack in one skill from PC classes are way bigger than +14. I'm not saying it's bad, just that a big pile of HD isn't particularly broken. I mean, you're a 16th level character. You're one level away from people busting out Time Stop and Wail of the Banshee. Is ~100 extra HP really a big deal?

[Crake]

because the bonuses you can stack in one skill from PC classes are way bigger than +14

Not to nitpick, but most of the bonuses you get to skills come from gear, not class levels, so that +14 to skills is rather significant as it stacks entirely with the standard WBL you would get on this character. Being able to hit +35 to a skill without even hesitating at level 16 is not a small feat.

As for feats, 10 feats is a significant amount, and they're more vaulable than fighter feats, because they aren't limited to fighter bonus feats.

With 10 feats you can pick up magical training, earth sense, heighten spell, earth spell, sanctum spell, snowcasting and versatile spellcaster to cast at +4 levels above your normal maximum, allowing you to spend a feat to get a 3rd level spell slot, then another feat to get a 6th level spell slot, and then another feat to get a 9th level spell slot. Guess what... That adds up to 9 feats. Guess what I'd pick as my 10th feat if I had 33 ranks in spellcraft and the ability to cast 9th level spells?

Worst case, even if you your DM doesn't allow you to pick up epic spellcasting, you just use your 9th level spell slot to repeatedly DCFS until all your feats are spent gaining extra high level spell slots, and boom, suddenly you're a 30HD frostwind virago with an array of high level spellcasting at your disposal as well.

Let's also not forget the sorts of shenannigans you could do with ToB classes. Spend a couple feats to fulfill some maneuver prerequisites, then just grab a single level in any initiator class and boom, you now have a slew of high level maneuvers, and you can DCFS the feats around so they use your new martial initiator recharge mechanic (while picking some more high level maneuvers at the time), all while again, retaining your advantage of 30HD and all the perks that come with it.

[Troacctid]

Funny you should mention wail of the banshee and time stop, since viragos have an AoE save or lose effect at will as a free action that is unaffected by immunities and has a save DC equivalent to a 10th level spell.

[NigelWalmsley]

Not to nitpick, but most of the bonuses you get to skills come from gear, not class levels, so that +14 to skills is rather significant as it stacks entirely with the standard WBL you would get on this character. Being able to hit +35 to a skill without even hesitating at level 16 is not a small feat.

Not for dedicated specialists. A Diplomancer will get the +6 Diplomacy invocation from Warlock and Motivate Charisma from the Marshal. Assuming a 30 Charisma (very reasonable for a character who is all-in on Diplomacy), that's already bigger than the Virago's bonus. The Virago is a good general skill-monkey. But that's not a super important role at 16th level.


With 10 feats you can pick up magical training, earth sense, heighten spell, earth spell, sanctum spell, snowcasting and versatile spellcaster to cast at +4 levels above your normal maximum, allowing you to spend a feat to get a 3rd level spell slot, then another feat to get a 6th level spell slot, and then another feat to get a 9th level spell slot. Guess what... That adds up to 9 feats. Guess what I'd pick as my 10th feat if I had 33 ranks in spellcraft and the ability to cast 9th level spells?

I'm highly skeptical that what you're describing is RAW legal.


Let's also not forget the sorts of shenannigans you could do with ToB classes. Spend a couple feats to fulfill some maneuver prerequisites, then just grab a single level in any initiator class and boom, you now have a slew of high level maneuvers, and you can DCFS the feats around so they use your new martial initiator recharge mechanic (while picking some more high level maneuvers at the time), all while again, retaining your advantage of 30HD and all the perks that come with it.

But you actually have a lower initiator level than a single-classed ToB character. Admittedly only by 1, but it's the 1 that gets you 9th level maneuvers.

[Crake]

Not for dedicated specialists. A Diplomancer will get the +6 Diplomacy invocation from Warlock and Motivate Charisma from the Marshal. Assuming a 30 Charisma (very reasonable for a character who is all-in on Diplomacy), that's already bigger than the Virago's bonus. The Virago is a good general skill-monkey. But that's not a super important role at 16th level.

Except you're forgetting that the virago also has a baked in +10 charisma as part if it's "class features", which would make it's diplomacy bonus go from +14 to +19, hence beating out the "specialist's" +16. And even if you don't take that into account, you could just take one of the 5 extra feats the virago has ontop of this "specialist" and just grab a skill focus feat, boom, again, you're above the specialist's bonus of +16. And even if we don't take that into account, the virago is still only 2 points behind the specialist's singular speciality skill, wheras the virago can get that +14 bonus to a myriad of skills. I wouldn't call that a general skill money, that's more akin to being a specialist in a whole suite of skills.


I'm highly skeptical that what you're describing is RAW legal.

It's part of the trick I use to get double 9s by level 12 with a chameleon, and it is, as far as I can tell, entirely rules legal.


But you actually have a lower initiator level than a single-classed ToB character. Admittedly only by 1, but it's the 1 that gets you 9th level maneuvers.

Yeah, but only for a single level, and said initiator will only have a single 9th level maneuver, and maybe 2-3 8th level maneuvers at that point, wheras the virago could have upward of 6 8th level maneuvers in the case of the swordsage, 3 in the case of the warblade, and 5 for the crusader. And then the next level the initiator loses their benefit of having 9th level maneuvers over the virago.

[Malphegor]

I’m personally more fond of the concept of converting (aka homebrewing) monster level adjustments into a savage progressions class. Is generally easy enough to break down a monster into a series of levels in which you get your stuff split up.

That way you can be some really impressive races... But maybe not have all their goodies right off from the bat, and maybe never unlock the full potential of their race because they took class levels instead.

That way ALL LA races are LA+1, you just need to workshop how the breakdown of the monster levels is with your DM.

(now I’m certain some groups might dislike the extra work at character creation, but here’s my thoughts: it means you don’t have monsters and races popping into existence at a CR appropriate point but as a thing that exists in your world from the getgo. Basically savage progressionsifying your monster levels results in the players exploring the potential of the system and being some wild thing like a dragon baby at level 1!)

[GrayDeath]

Generally speaking, if dealing with Players who want to paly "unusual" Races you have 3 Options.

1.: You say No.
Especially fitting if you are playing a specific Story/Adventure Path/Setting, where it simply doesnt fit, or you and/or the Players are new to DnD.


2.: You use a variation of LA/Savage Progression (whichever fits your group better) so that being of a "Monster Race" requires people to spend ressources.
May also profit from homebrewing.
For example if we use LA Races, we first use the redone LA from this site, if available, then usually say "LA +X is free" which is the Level of Unusual the DM wants, then use LA buyoff as follows:
First LA at Level 4, then one every 3 levels.

Worked well most of the time.

or

3.: You Allow all your Players to play whichever race they want as long as they are vaguely the same power (after all, regular classes are usually LESS balanced than vaguely the same power^^) and go from there.

This requires the least hassle pre play, but you will need to rebalance/redesing a LOT of encounters this way.

Played some of my most fun games this way though.

[Trandir]

Now that I think about it all my players want to play LA +0 races. But some may want to take a template, those are handled in the same way as LA +1 or higher races?

[GrayDeath]

Depends on the Template, really.

From +0 for Dragonborn of Bahamut to +4 for Half Celestial there are tons of them.

However in handling, aside from the fact some can be aquired and hence dont need to be there from the start, they are treated the same at my table (barring socially).

[Quertus]

So, it sounds like, at CR = ECL, frostwind virago is reasonably balanced… *if* they play into its strengths. But what if they them take levels in Wizard, or Binder? Anyone have a good fix for that?

[noob]

So, it sounds like, at CR = ECL, frostwind virago is reasonably balanced… *if* they play into its strengths. But what if they them take levels in Wizard, or Binder? Anyone have a good fix for that?

We can go through the MM route of non associated class levels for wizard and make it count partially toward ecl as long as the wizard class features are not a very huge part of the character.
The level in naberius it is great if you are not a full caster.

[Crake]

We can go through the MM route of non associated class levels for wizard and make it count partially toward ecl as long as the wizard class features are not a very huge part of the character.
The level in naberius it is great if you are not a full caster.

Careful with that line of logic, because the non associated class levels rules in the MM are quite far from anything nearing the idea of balanced.

[noob]

Careful with that line of logic, because the non associated class levels rules in the MM are quite far from anything nearing the idea of balanced.

Defining what is a huge part of character is on a case per case basis unlike counting class levels relatively to hd.
Ex: a wisp will get its wizard levels to count as being associated very fast as natural invisibility and magic immunity can be very good in the early game.
In regular MM it would be counted as associated only after 9 wizard levels and a wisp with 9 wizard levels is quite scary for a monster of its own cr.

[Crake]

Defining what is a huge part of character is on a case per case basis unlike counting class levels relatively to hd.
Ex: a wisp will get its wizard levels to count as being associated very fast as natural invisibility and magic immunity can be very good in the early game.
In regular MM it would be counted as associated only after 9 wizard levels and a wisp with 9 wizard levels is quite scary for a monster of its own cr.

After 9 wizard levels yes, but you could take 8 levels of wizard, and then prestige, and take another 8 levels in the prestige class, and still not have hit the associated class levels point, because it's only when you reach 9 levels in a single class that the switch happens. Now sure, for wizard perhaps, you could argue that advancing casting would count, but what about other classes?

What about if that wisp take 8 levels of rogue, 8 levels of wizard, and then decides to multiclass into unseen seer, allowing it to take 16 levels over the span of 8 CR? Admittedly not the best combo, but it demonstrates a point about how absurdly quickly you can rack up class levels at the half CR advancement rate. It gets even worse when you start getting into roles that multiclass well, such as martials and skill monkeys, who may sometimes never take more than 8 levels in a single class throughout their entire career anyway.

[noob]

After 9 wizard levels yes, but you could take 8 levels of wizard, and then prestige, and take another 8 levels in the prestige class, and still not have hit the associated class levels point, because it's only when you reach 9 levels in a single class that the switch happens. Now sure, for wizard perhaps, you could argue that advancing casting would count, but what about other classes?

What about if that wisp take 8 levels of rogue, 8 levels of wizard, and then decides to multiclass into unseen seer, allowing it to take 16 levels over the span of 8 CR? Admittedly not the best combo, but it demonstrates a point about how absurdly quickly you can rack up class levels at the half CR advancement rate. It gets even worse when you start getting into roles that multiclass well, such as martials and skill monkeys, who may sometimes never take more than 8 levels in a single class throughout their entire career anyway.
I told 9 for the description of why the mm rule itself was broken and you believed it was the one I suggested.
here is my previous post line from which you did read the 9
"In regular MM it would be counted as associated only after 9 wizard levels and a wisp with 9 wizard levels is quite scary for a monster of its own cr."
I think rogue is definitively associated with fighter, ranger, scout, barbarian and so on and should be tallied together: basically half of the classes are associated with each other(each casting class is associated with all the casting classes that progresses it and should be tallied together).
I explicitly told 9 levels in wizard on a wisp was already way too much and that something low should be the breakpoint due to the synergy of its abilities with casting abilities.

[martixy]

Since it doesn't do its job all that well your best bet is, as many have suggested, a custom savage progression. When you don't wanna bother I'd suggest something simple like -1 LA every 4 levels, not the over-complicated mess of the buy-off rules.

[NigelWalmsley]

Except you're forgetting that the virago also has a baked in +10 charisma as part if it's "class features", which would make it's diplomacy bonus go from +14 to +19, hence beating out the "specialist's" +16. And even if you don't take that into account, you could just take one of the 5 extra feats the virago has ontop of this "specialist" and just grab a skill focus feat, boom, again, you're above the specialist's bonus of +16. And even if we don't take that into account, the virago is still only 2 points behind the specialist's singular speciality skill, wheras the virago can get that +14 bonus to a myriad of skills. I wouldn't call that a general skill money, that's more akin to being a specialist in a whole suite of skills.

Sure, you can specialize as a Virago too. But the bonuses I was talking about were just two levels worth of investment. The specialist has another 14 levels to sink into whatever it is they're doing instead. Again, I'm not saying the Virago is bad, just that I don't think a big pile of HD is game-breaking for a 16th level character to have.


It's part of the trick I use to get double 9s by level 12 with a chameleon, and it is, as far as I can tell, entirely rules legal.

Well that seems like it brings up a whole different question. If it's okay to have 9ths as a 12th level character, then isn't Epic Spellcasting at 16 just a logical progression from there? After all, it's four levels from 9ths to Epic Spellcasting the normal way.


Careful with that line of logic, because the non associated class levels rules in the MM are quite far from anything nearing the idea of balanced.

It's also not even that much better at correcting the progression problem. If our hypothetical Fire Giant gets two levels of Sorcerer instead of one for becoming an 11th level equivalent character, he's still got the spellcasting of something the encounter guidelines say isn't even supposed to be a threat. Mostly what it does is create stupid cheese in the form of every character finding some monster with CR <= 1/2 HD that gets their class non-associated and then coming in with the character they'd play normally, except better. And, of course, this is best for casters, because its bruiser monsters that tend to have the most lopsided HD/CR ratios.

[Crake]

Sure, you can specialize as a Virago too. But the bonuses I was talking about were just two levels worth of investment. The specialist has another 14 levels to sink into whatever it is they're doing instead. Again, I'm not saying the Virago is bad, just that I don't think a big pile of HD is game-breaking for a 16th level character to have.

Depends on your definition of game-breaking I guess. I never said having 30HD breaks the game though, I said it throws all the math completely out of whack, which it does. Another interesting point would be that a virago would be almost entirely immune to the effects of a blasphemy (or the other variants) spell at the expected level you'd be fighting them, making some fights far easier. The more you dig into it, the more and more use-cases where having an absurd amount of HD causes issues.


Well that seems like it brings up a whole different question. If it's okay to have 9ths as a 12th level character, then isn't Epic Spellcasting at 16 just a logical progression from there? After all, it's four levels from 9ths to Epic Spellcasting the normal way.

Well, normally epic spells are kept safely away behind the requirement of 24 ranks in skills, and the 21+HD/level requirement to take epic feats. As an aside, I wouldn't expect a DM to allow dual 9ths at 12th level in a game as a matter of principle, but having a 16th level character with 8th/9th level spells at CL 1 doesn't seem like as much of an issue, especially given how few spell slots said character would have.

[martixy]

Depends on your definition of game-breaking I guess. I never said having 30HD breaks the game though, I said it throws all the math completely out of whack, which it does.

3.5 is borked by default.

Removing the HD/level relationship has always struck me as the single worst way to break the player character base assumptions the game makes.

[smetzger]

There is a whole LA reassignment thread. Either use the RAW LA or the one from the thread.

[Blue Jay]

There is a whole LA reassignment thread. Either use the RAW LA or the one from the thread.

And, shameless plug: I've already created level progressions for a whole lot of monsters using the RLA (Reassigned LAs).

Here's practically all of Monster Manual 1 (https://www.myth-weavers.com/showthread.php?t=486034)
Here's most of Monster Manual 3 (https://www.myth-weavers.com/showthread.php?t=486034)
Here's a good chunk of Fiend Folio (https://www.myth-weavers.com/showthread.php?t=486036)

I've got dozens more from other books that I just haven't gotten around to posting online yet.

I'm running a game with these monster at Myth-Weavers, and it's been a total blast. So far, it seems that these monster PCs are rather tougher than standard-race PCs, and can handle tougher encounters. But, monster spellcasting generally lags a bit, and it can be trickier to navigate through the optimization gateways because they just weren't designed to interface with monsters very well. But, even with the RLA project, there's still a lot of unevenness. We tend to be awfully dismissive of the impact of numerical bonuses, and I think that's made things difficult for me to predict as DM. I've got a unicorn PC (LA +1) who could afford to blow most of his money on a single gimmick item because his numerical bonuses were big enough to cover all his basic needs; he's not much in melee (good defense, mediocre offense), but he's a fantastic support "caster" (in part due to the player's game mastery, and also in part due to me allowing that peculiarity in the way an ardent qualifies for new powers). I've got some real weird PCs, too: an incorporeal undead and a swarm of cranium rats. I haven't presented either one of them many good opportunities to really shine yet, but they're all finding ways to contribute, and I'm really enjoying the creativity of my players. DMing for monsters is always interesting.

Incidentally, I've also been playing and moderating an ongoing club game there at Myth-Weavers that plays gestalt with monsters (including Oslecamo's improved monsters) and every sourcebook open. Monsters are amazing in gestalt! You get a lot of mileage out of stacking one side with monsters and templates, and the other side with class levels. Wild Shape loses its appeal when you can play a monster, so all the druid ACFs tend to show up regularly. Most of our games are played at relatively low levels (new characters always start at 3rd level), so we don't often get to the point where casters really dominate the game (except when the really good optimizers are playing). There's actually an unbelievable degree of melee dominance, because it's really easy to get basically the whole of an insane melee build put together by 3rd level: it's not uncommon to see 28+ Str, 50+ hit points, AC 25 or higher, 2nd-level martial maneuvers, Pounce, Whirling Frenzy, spiked chain proficiency and Large size all on the same starting character. We also see a lot of Multiattack blenders that can make 5 or more attacks at 3rd level, all with rather decent damage. Standard-race characters can struggle a bit to compete, but even with haphazardly throwing parties together, there are usually enough things to do that everyone can find ways to contribute: it's kind of rare to see someone completely marginalized in-game. It takes flexibility on the DM's part, and we've had to compromise several aspects of the game (like loot collecting) to keep things reasonably balanced; but most players and DMs are well-adjusted enough to handle it civilly.

[vasilidor]

Since it doesn't do its job all that well your best bet is, as many have suggested, a custom savage progression. When you don't wanna bother I'd suggest something simple like -1 LA every 4 levels, not the over-complicated mess of the buy-off rules.

I very much agree with this. furthermore I would allow players to trade racial hit dice for class levels as the game progressed. yes I know in some cases this can make a character more squishy, but would still be worth it in my own opinion.

[Quertus]

And a level 8 wisp Wizard would, if counting "non associated levels" as half, be ECL=CR of…? And have stats of…? And this would be (un)reasonable at that level because…?

[Crake]

And a level 8 wisp Wizard would, if counting "non associated levels" as half, be ECL=CR of…? And have stats of…? And this would be (un)reasonable at that level because…?

they would have a CR of 10, and while that itself is not unreasonable, by using the base MM rules, the wisp could then go on to take 8 levels in a different class, but one that advanced their wizard casting, like say, incantatrix, cause why not, so now you have a CR14 wisp with 16 class levels, so now you have a CR14 wisp with 16 class levels ontop of the 9 racial HD they already have. Hence why I said that the monster manual rules for nonassociated class levels isn't a good approach to take, at least, without some homebrew.

For reference, that CR10, 8 level wizard would have 17 HD, a BAB of 10 (same as a martial of the same CR), 9d8+8d4 HD, an average of 60hp before any con bonuses the character may decide to pick up, that would go up to 94 with a mere 14 con, base saves of +5 fort, +5 reflex, and +12 will, all before including any of the special abilities and ability score adjustments of a wisp.