The LA-assignment thread V: Escape from LA

[Inevitability]

An official announcement from Inevitability:

The following is in response to recent debate about the Naztharune's LA, the difficulty of assigning level adjustments, and the discussions about what the balance goal even is.

When I started this thread, I never could've imagined it'd ever become this big. I saw it as some kind of side project that might be useful to a few people, but now, after a year and a half, it's grown into this huge popular community project.

I'll admit that earlier ratings are probably inconsistent with what the thread would recommend now, due to a better understanding of power levels, several revisions of assignment rules, and the lower past community involvement. As the thread moved on, the assignment system improved, but a core issue that I've failed to address is that of balance goals.

In this thread I've seen people claim that balance means being tier 3, that it means being somewhere in the tier 2-4 range, or that it means performing equal to some PC class (occasionally with the disclaimer that said PC class must be at least tier 4).

The issue here is that neither is a perfect solution. Rating every monster based on tier 3 not only creates the issue of outperforming existent tier 4 classes (a core argument of the +1 Naztharune side seems to be that +0 Naztharune would overshadow rogues), but also makes casting monsters lag behind compared to high-tier PC casters (after all, having casting ability equal to a tier 1 caster isn't a tier 3 trait).

The other option, rating everything relative to one from a set of PC classes, only strengthens the issues the game already has. Under those rules, a monster with 17th-level wizard casting and one as strong as a 17th-level martial might be nominally balanced against each other, but it's obvious they aren't really. There's the further issue of many monsters not being easily compared to default classes, or what even constitutes a default class (if a monster is significantly stronger than a cleric but about equal to a strongheart halfling cleric with a bunch of PrCs, is it balanced at +0?).

Up to now, I've applied either definition depending on my personal judgement, but I feel like this is not the way to continue. To avoid future confusion and streamline debates (right now, the question is as much 'how do we determine what LA the rakshasa should have' as it is 'what LA should the rakshasa have'), I've decided for a Public Vote on the matter.



For the coming few days, everybody can vote on:

Option #1: All monsters are to be rated so that they are more-or-less equal to a comparable PC class of equal ECL.
Option #2: All monsters are to be rated so that they are more-or-less equal to a tier 3 class of equal ECL.

The chosen option will be implemented from here on and included in the archive. More specific rules, such as how to deal with monsters that aren't easily compared to a PC class if option 1 is picked, can be discussed afterwards; this is mostly to decide on one of two different main methods.



Afterwards, there'll be opportunity for people to submit monsters that they suspect should be re-rated on account of me using a now-disused definition in their descriptions or a shifted perspective on monster power.

Rating of the Naztharune will be temporarily on hold while this whole issue is figured out. Apologies for this.