The LA-assignment thread III: Now in HD!

[Blue Jay]

Spoiler: Psionic PP

Show

Other than that, to be really sure, have a look at the Power Points/Day ability in the ardent class description (CPsi page 7), and the bonus power power point table (EPH page 18). Bonus power points go by class level, not manifester level.

I know very little about psionics at all, but the SRD at least seems to mention that the bonus PP (i.e., the ones you get for having a high enough mental stat) are based on ML, not class level:

How To Determine Bonus Power Points

Your key ability score grants you additional power points equal to your key ability modifier × your manifester level ×½.

Source

A niche ranking system created by Person_Man has been discussed before...

I don't think pure unicorns rate that well on this system, but that is a bit unfair to them. You should probably rate unicorn [class] 2 against straight [class] 2 instead (and then again at ECL 15). However, it's a lot of work to do that for a good sample of classes. In addition, the niche system isn't fine-grained enough to decide about small differences, such as a single point of LA*, within a niche. So while we might agree that unicorn crusaders and straight crusaders rate a 1 in Meat Shield, that won't help us decide on the LA.

I'm also curious--and slightly apprehensive--about reactions to the niche ranking system itself.

Ah, yeah: I've seen that. I even put it in a spreadsheet with conditional formatting so I could actually see it all. It's a really cool idea, but I'm not sure how to handle it, exactly. It's helpful in that it gives a different, and more nuanced way to look at things, and can be useful for helping targeted house rules or homebrew fixes, but I don't know that I have the system mastery to confidently assign 2's and 4's in a comprehensive way like that, especially if there's to be a sliding-scale of ECL involved.

Maybe I'll take a shot at another ECL-5 monster, and you can evaluate my rating. I like centaurs, and they're kind of simple, so I'll go with that one:

Spoiler: Centaur Rating Attempt

Show

	BFC	Buff	Curios	Debuff	Dominate	Game C.	Heal	Meat S.	Melee	Mobility	Party Face	Ranged	Sage	Scout	Thief	Summon	Trapfind	Total
Centaur	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	2	1	2	4	2	4	3	4	4	4	58

I rated centaur as good in melee because the of +8 Str, manufactured weapons, and the Spirited Charge thing.

Curiosity... a centaur has nothing for this. But, I think neutralize poison goes with the healing niche, so I probably would say the unicorn is also a 4 here.

Not as great as a meat shield because of the d8 hit die that's only partially compensated for a +4 in Con.

I'm not sure about Mobility and Scouting: class skill list is basically the same (minus Jump), speed is slightly lower (but still high), and skill points take a hit from -2 Int, but I rated them okay, anyway.

Ranged combat is probably not the centaur's best use (although it's my personal favorite), but the bonuses to Dex and Str and composite longbow proficiency help here. But, why did you give the unicorn 3 for ranged? It doesn't have any ranged ability at all, does it?

I think the centaur does poorly in a lot of things and I don't think they'll see the same kind of boost from adding 2 class levels that a unicorn will see.

I think I might foresee a skewness problem: the highest possible score is 68, and we'll probably see that the monsters will tend to butt up against that higher bound because they're all kind of weak relative to PC classes. But, I think it might still be a worthwhile venture to poke around with it: perhaps we could go tinker with it on a different thread?

[ExLibrisMortis]

I know very little about psionics at all, but the SRD at least seems to mention that the bonus PP (i.e., the ones you get for having a high enough mental stat) are based on ML, not class level:

Well, yes, that's literally the only place where it says that. This is the bit from the EPH:

Your key ability score grants you additional power points equal to your key ability modifier × your manifester level × 1/2. Table 2–1 shows these calculations for class levels 1st through 20th and key ability scores from 10 to 41.

As you can see, it tells you to use ML, then tells you the table uses class level. I think that "manifester level" is supposed to be interpreted as "levels in a manifesting class", not "actually manifesting a power" ML. There are a couple of other reasons to do so:
1) That's what the table says. I know, text trumps table, but you're actually told to consult the table, before the formula even appears, so it's pretty much part of the text.
2) All text references (including the various classes) refer to the table. The formula is never referred to by any class description or other section of the rules. It's pretty clear that the table is the primary source, and the formula an afterthought.
3) It's massively dysfunctional to assume ML over class level. For example, a Mind Mage with Psiotheurgy can easily get ML 100, being the sum of ML 30 and CL 70 (consumptive field shenanigans), but only for powers of certain disciplines. Does that mean I get bonus pp as a level 100 manifester, but only when manifesting powers of those disciplines? How would I even have different pp reserves for all the different MLs I have? What if I have ML bonuses to specific powers only?

The underlying problem, of course, is that the writers understood the game as being "ML = class level = character level = ECL = HD = CR = 1d20", and it took a pack of rabid editors to catch them on the differences. (sometimes)

Overall, 1/2*class level*casting mod is the more reasonable interpretation.


@Blue Jay: I agree on those ratings, but I'd bump up BFC and maybe Debuff one step, because centaurs, though lacking reach, do cover a bigger area than medium creatures, and they have decent strength, plus weapon use (spiked chains are sweet), so they can trip stuff. (unicorns don't get the reach tripping, but I gave them BFC 3 anyway.)

Unicorns have 3 for ranged because... I don't know, still thinking about Soulbow/weapon use I guess? That should be a 4, ranged without hands is a problem. Centaur ranged might be 3. Proficiency isn't enough to promote archery to 2 (practically anyone gets that), and +8 str/+4 dex over 4 levels is borderline. For example, barbarians are also rank 3 Ranged, and they get Whirling Frenzy. To keep in mind: rank 1 Ranged is the mailman, which is a hard act to follow.

A new thread about the niche ranking system as applied to monstrous PCs would be good, I'll just be away for the next two days, so don't expect an immediate reply .

[atemu1234]

Wow, it feels like I haven't contributed to these threads in a while. Anyone want to recap the current discourse, for those running on 2 1/2 hours of sleep?

[Nifft]

Well, yes, that's literally the only place where it says that. This is the bit from the EPH:

As you can see, it tells you to use ML, then tells you the table uses class level.

The table doesn't tell you to use class levels, and if it did then that would screw over anyone who took a Prestige Class, which is far more common than Ardent + Practiced Manifester.

The rule is: when text disagrees with table, then text trumps table. Text says ML, therefore the correct interpretation is ML. Period.

However, the table isn't wrong. It's incomplete, but it's not intentionally misleading. If you have 20 levels in one class, that table will be helpful to you at every level.

If you have two or more classes, then the table might not be sufficient. Then you have to use the text. That's fine. The text isn't difficult, and the table is just an example of using the text for one class.


Regarding the niche challenge... I thought the idea was:

1/ You, ExLibrisMortis, pick one monster from the list of ECL5 monsters, and pick one niche for that monster.

2/ You do a build on top of that ECL5 monster which you think a Unicorn can't beat.

3/ We try to beat your build at the same ECL with an LA +1 Unicorn.

Here's the list:

Ankheg
Aranea
Blink dog
Brass Dragon, Wyrmling
Centaur
Choker
Dire Wolverine
Dryad
Eagle, Giant
Ethereal Filcher
Owl, Giant
Owlbear
Pegasus
Shadow Mastiff
Spider Eater
Sprite, Pixie (with Irresistible Dance)

Spoiler: List Source

Show

This seems like a sensible approach, but I feel like, to some extent, the evaluation has to be based on the monster as a standalone product. Otherwise, we end up making all our evaluations based on the performance ceilings, which is very a poor indicator of what the majority of D&D players are going to be doing with the monster. The unicorn seems powerful to me, not because it has a high performance ceiling, but because it can probably meet the average requirements for pretty much anything you build it for.

Here's a list of all the monsters that were rated at ECL 5 (except the ones that were assigned LA -0):

Spoiler: ECL 5

Show

Ankheg
Aranea
Blink dog
Brass Dragon, Wyrmling
Centaur
Choker
Dire Wolverine
Dryad
Eagle, Giant
Ethereal Filcher
Owl, Giant
Owlbear
Pegasus
Shadow Mastiff
Spider Eater
Sprite, Pixie (with Irresistible Dance)
Unicorn

Since they're all ECL 5, this should be a relatively even playing field: generally speaking, everyone here has the same opportunity costs (in terms of how many spell levels or maneuvers they have to give up, etc), so this should make for a much more useful and generalizable comparison. Obviously, the aranea's racial spellcasting and the various racial SLA palettes compromise the "even playing field" a bit, but that sort of noise shouldn't invalidate the approach in general.

Now imagine that you have to build a character using a monster from this list. Go through whatever list of "niches" or "character roles" or "archetypes" you prefer ("gish", "support caster", "party face", "blaster", etc), and rank all the monsters in this list for their suitability for each niche. How many times does the unicorn come up near the bottom of the list? How many times does it come up near the top? I feel like the unicorn will generally come out well above average for just about any build you can imagine, while practically everything else on that list will only come out high in one or two specific niches, while falling well below average in all others.

I guess, in a lot of ways, the unicorn is kind of "idiot proof": those big stat mods help compensate for the deficiencies in a lot of builds, which means it really doesn't actually suck at anything. So, the "floor" is quite high for a unicorn. Fun Fact: In that list of ECL 5 monsters, I think there are only 5 that have a single ability score higher than a unicorn: aranea (Int), dire wolverine (Str), dryad (Dex), filcher (Dex), pixie (Dex). And the differences are, respectively, +4, +1, +2, +1 and +1. And no monster has two ability scores higher than a unicorn.

I don't know if I really think LA +2 is completely necessary, but any of those other monsters that moves even a little bit off their optimization peak probably can't compete with a unicorn doing the same thing.

[Blue Jay]

@Blue Jay: I agree on those ratings, but I'd bump up BFC and maybe Debuff one step, because centaurs, though lacking reach, do cover a bigger area than medium creatures, and they have decent strength, plus weapon use (spiked chains are sweet), so they can trip stuff. (unicorns don't get the reach tripping, but I gave them BFC 3 anyway.)

Oh, I see: I guess that makes sense for BFC, but I don't think anything a centaur can do counts as debuffing.

Centaur ranged might be 3. Proficiency isn't enough to promote archery to 2 (practically anyone gets that), and +8 str/+4 dex over 4 levels is borderline. For example, barbarians are also rank 3 Ranged, and they get Whirling Frenzy. To keep in mind: rank 1 Ranged is the mailman, which is a hard act to follow.

I don't even know what the mailman is. But, yeah, I just chose 2 because you put unicorn at 3: I don't have a good sense of the benchmarks.

Regarding the niche challenge... I thought the idea was:

1/ You, ExLibrisMortis, pick one monster from the list of ECL5 monsters, and pick one niche for that monster.

2/ You do a build on top of that ECL5 monster which you think a Unicorn can't beat.

3/ We try to beat your build at the same ECL with an LA +1 Unicorn.

Wait, it was a challenge? If it's a competition, Blue Jay will probably run away and hide.

[Nifft]

Wait, it was a challenge? If it's a competition, Blue Jay will probably run away and hide.

Too late!

You've already been seen in the forum, and you don't have Hide In Plain Site.

[Mike Miller]

Too late!

You've already been seen in the forum, and you don't have Hide In Plain Site.

I see what you did there.

On topic, I really think Unicorn overshadows similar choices (read similar builds) that have been covered thus far for +1. At +2 it is still a viable option for its type (again, read build). I feel the current debate is justification for that assertion.

[javcs]

The +1 the Unicorn gets is a stronger +1 than the Centaur gets, true. However, LA integer values represent a range of power/ability.
And the Centaur has hands.


However, as a general rule, I'd say the narrowness of the Unicorn's ability to find a good build for optimization, the narrowness of their functionality, and the fact that they have no clean progression from their racial abilities nor means to advance their racial abilities, all combine to be a significant downside. Plus the lack of hands or other manipulators, that's a significant downside all by itself.
Unicorns have good stats, true. They have a couple of nice abilities/features, true. But when all's said and done ... Unicorns are pretty much fancy Horses with +numbers, and a couple of useful abilities that don't scale.

[No brains]

I think people are forgetting that the centaur gets +1 while also being pretty good. Having a built-in mount increases the power of ubercharging, which is supposed to be one of the best options a melee character has. It's not warhulk-ing hurling, but it's still a good way to clatter out a huge pile of dice all at once. It might not be optimal, but it's fun.

[Zancloufer]

I am going to have to agree with the +1 LA rating. Why:

-As said they have no clear advancement. Their racial bonuses while a nice pile of numbers don't segway into anything.

-No casting and 4 RHD +1LA means you are almost 3 spell levels behind everyone else.

-Lack of hands and low skill points (and INT being the closest thing to a dump stat) mean they make a terrible skill monkey without serious investment (Marshal + Bard let's them CATCH UP as a face character).

-Lack of hands + weak natural attacks means serious investment to make them a decent bruiser.


I have to ask: How does a Unicorn contribute in a level 6 party? I don't see them doing much tbh. I mean it can heal a little between combat (like ~40 HP) and it's horn is slightly better than a long sword for the most part. So it's like a Sword and Board fighter with less feats but tons of charisma and a 4/day item of Cure Wounds?

[TotallyNotEvil]

LA +2 easily.

I gave a ranger a unicorn companion at levels 7th-8th, just default unicorn with changed feats, and it's a freaking monster.

Net +50 to stats, with no negative one... That's ridiculous. Utterly ridiculous. You will be starting the game with all-but-INT in the mid-20s or low-30s.

Magic Circle is a free +2 Resistance and Deflection not only to you, but for the whole party. At ECL6, that's a big deal.

Not only that, completely foils mind-control schemes just by passing by.

Wild Empathy is out-and-out a class feature, you get +6 NA and three decent natural attacks for your troubles, and also some handy immunities.

[danielxcutter]

LA +2 easily.

I gave a ranger a unicorn companion at levels 7th-8th, just default unicorn with changed feats, and it's a freaking monster.

Net +50 to stats, with no negative one... That's ridiculous. Utterly ridiculous. You will be starting the game with all-but-INT in the mid-20s or low-30s.

Magic Circle is a free +2 Resistance and Deflection not only to you, but for the whole party. At ECL6, that's a big deal.

Not only that, completely foils mind-control schemes just by passing by.

Wild Empathy is out-and-out a class feature, you get +6 NA and three decent natural attacks.

That's probably because it took the place of a ranger's animal companion, which are usually weak af.

Still, unicorns aren't *weak*. I see nobody's willing to go under +1.

[Baby Gary]

I am going to have to agree with the +1 LA rating. Why:

-As said they have no clear advancement. Their racial bonuses while a nice pile of numbers don't segway into anything.

-No casting and 4 RHD +1LA means you are almost 3 spell levels behind everyone else.

-Lack of hands and low skill points (and INT being the closest thing to a dump stat) mean they make a terrible skill monkey without serious investment (Marshal + Bard let's them CATCH UP as a face character).

-Lack of hands + weak natural attacks means serious investment to make them a decent bruiser.


I have to ask: How does a Unicorn contribute in a level 6 party? I don't see them doing much tbh. I mean it can heal a little between combat (like ~40 HP) and it's horn is slightly better than a long sword for the most part. So it's like a Sword and Board fighter with less feats but tons of charisma and a 4/day item of Cure Wounds?

LA +1 for the reasons listed above, I am to lazy to write that all out

[Random Sanity]

That's probably because it took the place of a ranger's animal companion, which are usually weak af.

Still, unicorns aren't *weak*. I see nobody's willing to go under +1.

I'm opposed to LAs (and RHD) in general, and I would have gone lower, but it seems this community regards monster PCs being treated fairly as some kind of insult.

[lord_khaine]

I'm opposed to LAs (and RHD) in general, and I would have gone lower, but it seems this community regards monster PCs being treated fairly as some kind of insult.

No, the insult would be if monsters were allowed to overshadow regular human race pc's.

This is one of the places where Wizards design philosofy were correct. You should play a monster pc because its what you want to play, not because its the strongest choice.

[Blue Jay]

I'm opposed to LAs (and RHD) in general, and I would have gone lower, but it seems this community regards monster PCs being treated fairly as some kind of insult.

I don't feel like you've thought this through properly. Being a member of a monster race gives a large number of benefits (like the unicorn's spell-like abilities and ability-score boosts): without RHD and/or LA, you'd be giving all that stuff away for free. That's not treating a monster fairly: that's being very unfair to everyone else.

This thread is trying to figure out how much each monster's abilities are worth, so we can "charge" players the proper amount for it.

WotC decided that a unicorn's abilities are worth 8 levels. As a forum community, we think it's only worth 5 or 6. Personally, I still think it's worth more than the other monster's in the ECL 5 bin, but I think community feedback is going uphold the ECL 5 ruling.

[Thurbane]

OK, I'm running a bit behind in this thread, I'll try to catch up a little:



Umber Hulk

Large Aberration (with reach)

• Speed 20 ft, burrow 20 ft (slow speed isn't great, but burrow is always nice)
• +8 natural AC (nice)
• 2 claws (2d4) and a bite (2d8): respectable natural attack routine
• Confusing gaze: this is a solid special attack. Comes with all the benefits and drawbacks of being a gaze attack. Immunity to mind-affecting will reduce it's usefulness as you progress.
• Darkvision 60ft, tremorsense 60 ft: both not bad. Tremorsense is like a poor man's blindsense, but definitely better than no such ability.
• Str +10, Dex +2, Con +8, Cha +2 (+22 total): this is good. All bonuses, no penalties. Great stats for a melee type, which is what you're going to be.
• 8 crappy RHD (2 skill points level, medium BAB, one good save): the only real drawback of the creature. Comes with a very limited racial skill list.

Pros: large size, great physical stats, natural attacks, natural AC, confusing gaze, tremorsense.
Cons: 8 awful RHD with a terrible skill set.

I'm voting LA +1. You'll be a melee type, and you can still hit BAB +16 by 19th level.

---

Unicorn

Large Magical Beast (no reach)

• Speed 60 ft: very nice
• +6 natural AC: not too shabby
• Horn (1d8) and 2 hooves (1d4): natural attacks are nice, but these are underwhelming. Also, you don't have manipulative digits, which seriously sucks for a PC.
• Magic Circle Against Evil, immunity to poison, charm and compulsion: these are solid defenese, and you can share the Magic Circle with nearby allies.
• Darkvision 60ft, low-light vision, scent: good senses to have.
• Detect Evil at will, gimped Greater Teleport 1/day, CLW 3/day, CMW 1/day: nice, but not game breaking. The limit on Greater Teleport limits it's usefulness. Acorn of Far Travel shenanigans probably apply.
• Wild Empathy: a cute little bonus ability. Nice, but again, far from game breaking.
• Str +10, Dex +6, Con +10, Wis +10, Cha +14 (+50 total): these are some pretty amazing stat modifiers. Just sayin'. According to the Celestial Charger stat block, Unicorns can become casters without requiring Surrogate Spellcasting. Not sure if that would actually fly in most games.
• 4 middle of the range racial HD (2 skill points level, good BAB, two good saves). Decent, but not great, racial skill set.

Pros: amazing ability mods, high movement rate, decent defenses, SLAs, good senses.
Cons: 4 RHD, non-humanoid body type, no manipulative digits (and that's the worst drawback IMHO).

I'm voting LA +2, waying up all factors.

[danielxcutter]

Aside from all agreements and disagreements of measuring the potential LA of said monsters, I defer to your superior choice of images for said previously mentioned creatures.

[Flickerdart]

Unicorn is barely +1. You are Large without reach, you have no hands, all you get is Magic Circle (a mediocre 3rd level spell, wow) and some flat non-scaling bonuses. Better hope your party doesn't have a summoner, because nongood creatures (AKA all the useful summons) can't stand near you.

[ExLibrisMortis]

@Thurbane: Anyone can become a caster without Surrogate Spellcasting, but unicorns cannot cast spells with material or somatic components--that ability is not in their description anywhere. Yes, that's seriously stupid when it comes to the celestial charger, but the DM should probably just customize its feat selection (and drop those 4 additional RHD, come on). It's a bit like the rat swarm having Weapon Finesse, despite having no attacks that require attack rolls.

The table doesn't tell you to use class levels, and if it did then that would screw over anyone who took a Prestige Class, which is far more common than Ardent + Practiced Manifester.

The rule is: when text disagrees with table, then text trumps table. Text says ML, therefore the correct interpretation is ML. Period.

However, the table isn't wrong. It's incomplete, but it's not intentionally misleading. If you have 20 levels in one class, that table will be helpful to you at every level.

If you have two or more classes, then the table might not be sufficient. Then you have to use the text. That's fine. The text isn't difficult, and the table is just an example of using the text for one class.

Why would you think prestige classes would even be affected by this? Prestige classes are fine; they advance pp as if you gained a level in your base class.

It is clear from the text that 'manifester level' is a mistake, simply because the text goes on to assume it read 'class level'. If you want to take the text literally, you have to accept that it contradicts not the table, but itself--when it says "Table 2–1 shows these calculations for class levels 1st through 20th", it either doesn't show "these calculations" or it isn't using "class level". When there is a glitch in the text like that, you have to use some communication skills to find the mistake. In this case, the obvious error is the word "manifester", which should be "class", incidentally also avoiding a massive dysfunction. If you don't read "class", you don't know how to calculate your pp reserve (because you don't know which manifester level to use).

RAW is clear enough, RAI is bleedingly obvious, one interpretation is wildly dysfunctional. Nobody will let you use Practiced Manifester to advance pp gains.

[Nifft]

Why would you think prestige classes would even be affected by this? Prestige classes are fine; they advance pp as if you gained a level in your base class.

Because bonus PP for a high ability score are not gained by levels in your base class, which is why they have a whole separate table that's not in the class section of the book.

It's identical to how bonus spell slots from a high ability score don't come from class levels, but rather from spellcaster level.

It is clear from the text that 'manifester level' is a mistake, simply because the text goes on to assume it read 'class level'.

Nooooooope, sorry, I already explained that to you.

The table is an example of what the text says, and it's absolutely accurate if you're a single-class character.

The table is true and accurate -- but it's not the only truth, it's just one example which is true.

There is no conflict, except the one you invented in order to ignore the RAW.

If you don't read "class", you don't know how to calculate your pp reserve (because you don't know which manifester level to use).

Of course you do, it's in the text, just a little bit earlier.

The text also tells you which ability score to use -- if you throw away the text, the table would be worthless.

RAW is clear enough, RAI is bleedingly obvious, one interpretation is wildly dysfunctional. Nobody will let you use Practiced Manifester to advance pp gains.

RAW sure is clear -- and not in your favor.

RAI is also pretty clear, when you consider that spellcasters get bonus damage from higher caster level, but manifesters don't get higher damage unless they spend more PP. Therefore, to be equivalent to a higher caster level, the Practiced ______ feat for manifesters must provide more PP. It does, through the bonus PP for high ability score mechanic. All is copacetic.

Your interpretation is dysfunctional and not what I see IRL at the table.

Sorry.

Hope this helps.

[Zancloufer]

B
RAI is also pretty clear, when you consider that spellcasters get bonus damage from higher caster level, but manifesters don't get higher damage unless they spend more PP. Therefore, to be equivalent to a higher caster level, the Practiced ______ feat for manifesters must provide more PP. It does, through the bonus PP for high ability score mechanic. All is copacetic.

I would argue it's more the RAW reading of the feat that implies bonus PP:

This feat does not affect your powers per day or powers known. It only increases your manifester level, which helps you overcome power resistance and increases the duration and other effects of your powers.

While technically (by RAW) manifesters do not have powers per day, they do have power points per day. A quick RAI reading of that feat indicates that Practiced Manifester is not suppose to increase your Power Points.

[Nifft]

Unicorn is barely +1. You are Large without reach, you have no hands, all you get is Magic Circle (a mediocre 3rd level spell, wow) and some flat non-scaling bonuses. Better hope your party doesn't have a summoner, because nongood creatures (AKA all the useful summons) can't stand near you.

But also +50 across your stats, and some strong immunities.

That's gotta be worth something.

While technically (by RAW) manifesters do not have powers per day, they do have power points per day. A quick RAI reading of that feat indicates that Practiced Manifester is not suppose to increase your Power Points.

(1) Erudites do have powers-per-day, and they do appear in Complete Psionic, so it's not entirely meaningless for a feat from Comp Psi to reference them.

(2) Bolding the other half of the text implies the opposite:

This feat does not affect your powers per day or powers known. It only increases your manifester level, which helps you overcome power resistance and increases the duration and other effects of your powers.

Most other effects are the result of Augmentation.

Practiced Manifester does help increase the "other effects" by raising the manifester level cap, and -- in my reading -- by providing a few extra power points.


Talking about RAI -- IMHO the text of Practiced Manifester was probably just improperly copy-pasted, but it seems to me that the intent of Practiced Manifester was to provide a mirror for Practiced Spellcaster. Since spells do get better for free as your caster level rises, and powers don't get better for free, it makes sense to me that in order to mirror the effect of the former, you need to provide some PP with the latter. But that's pure RAI reasoning and not rules text.

[Inevitability]

Vampire

What is a man? A lot better than a vampire, given that it doesn't have to deal with +8 LA. Time to fix that.

All humanoids and monstrous humanoids can become vampires, which opens up some amusing possibilities (vampire tibbit, vampire gargoyle, vampire centaur). Obviously, their type changes to undead, which is generally a good thing. To compensate for the lost constitution, all hit dice become d12s (including future ones: wizards take notice!). Also, natural armor increases quite a bit, and ability scores are all boosted to varying amounts (with the obvious exception of constitution).

Of course, nobody plays vampire for the type or HD, they play it for the special abilities! Blood Drain is a lackluster start (something that's at most large won't be a good grappler), and Children of the Night is effectively a delayed summon that'll only be useful at low levels, but Dominate is pretty neat and Energy Drain is every natural attacker's wet dream. Kobold vampire rogue, anyone?

Alternate form is mostly useful for the at-will flight it provides, especially if your party members are light enough to carry along. Gaseous Form is kind of meh, but at least it's a nice exploration tool. Fast healing and DR are both very nice, as are the energy and turn resistances. Finally, there's Spider Climb, which is just confusing given the many other vampire abilities that do the same thing better.

Finally, vampires get five specific bonus feats (mostly bad ones, but useful for prerequisites), and a +8 racial bonus on half a dozen skills, which are overall quite neat.

Vampire weaknesses are annoying, but not to the degree that they impact the LA. Don't go out without sunlight-protection spells, and don't break and enter and you should be fine.

Given the sheer versatility of a vampire's abilities, as well as the general chassis upgrades, I feel like a LA of +3* (which would still let casters get 9th-level spells) is fine. The asterisk is here to account for spawn creation, which is of course too broken to allow on any kind of PC. Do discuss.

[TotallyNotEvil]

I do believe something around +4 and +5 to be fairer, honestly. There's simply too much gain, especially in regards to survivability.

[Caelestion]

Vampires have been a long time coming. Energy drain at will (even merely 1/round) is a very significant power and it's difficult to rate that.

[Jormengand]

I vote +2. Gone shall be the days of "You should have a greater than 50% chance to defeat an exact copy of yourself in combat." Fast healing is okay, DR 10 and some resistances are certainly nice, and the dominate ability is genuinely powerful, but apart from that you get a bunch of third-rate abilities which can't really be used together effectively and which tail off at high levels. Notably, it's arguably impossible to create a vampire before 5th level, which is ECL 7 where most of these abilities start to tail off notably. The limited immortality is completely useless - what campaign doesn't have you travel more than nine miles from your hometown by level 7? - and the fact that clerics have Protection From Vampires and you can't go into houses without being invited in by the owner can completely nullify your ability to do anything, or force the DM to accomodate you with some contrivance. When you're out in the sun, a lucky dispel can kill you outright, which is hardly a small deal. When you don't expect to be out in the sun, and are put in it, then you have one move action to get out or die - no casting protection from sunlight in that round because it's only attack actions, not any standard action, that you get to save yourself.

The fact that vampire adds no meaningful progression to whatever class you were taking is also something of a kick in the teethfangs.

[Mike Miller]

I feel like this is hard to rate because of the number of things you get. It is moreso the quantity than quality though. I could see +3 or +4. I don't know if I would consider it at +5 though. At +2 it seems like too much. In the end, I will agree with +3.

[Blue Jay]

I feel like vampire is one of the tougher ones to evaluate. There's just so much stuff in the template --- big stat boosts, a mix of summoning and shapechanging abilities, special attacks, create spawn, lots of assorted defenses, bonus feats and skill bonuses --- that makes me feel like it has to have a big LA. But, it's all balanced by some really stiff weaknesses that practically guarantee that you're eventually going to die suddenly and unexpectedly from some stupid, anticlimactic accident rather than from something with interesting narrative value.

I honestly just prefer to use a simpler template. Somebody on these forums pointed me to Fang and Fury by Green Ronin, and that book has a much simpler, more streamlined vampire template for LA +2, and it gives a more focused set of abilities.

But, if I'm forced to vote on an LA for the Monster Manual vampire, I'd probably recommend LA +4, and encourage that the DM be merciful with the sunlight thing, because that's a real fun-spoiler.

[Thurbane]

I do believe something around +4 and +5 to be fairer, honestly. There's simply too much gain, especially in regards to survivability.

I tend to agree. So many special abilities. Stat boosts, bonus feats, skill bonuses, energy drain, dominate...

It comes with some inbuilt weaknesses, for sure. IMHO, these are far, far outweighed by the benefits. There's a reason I use vamps as BBEGs in my games far more often than Liches or other high powered undead. They are just that good.

Since LA +5 will never get through, I'm voting LA +4.