The LA Assignment Thread XI: Better LA'd Than Never

[Thurbane]

In regards the Cave Troll, remember that Undead immunities are very valuable. The Troll has a poor will save, poor mental stats, and no innate defences against mind-affecting attacks or things like Ray of Stupidity. Some relatively low level spells and abilities can shut it down, hard. Since we've been rating undead for so long, it's easy to overlook that these immunities are part of what we are rating for this book in the most part.

End of the day, there's a lot of monsters where I disagreed with the final rating, but unless we have this as a community vote, and are taking the most popular and/or median reply, we'd never get past rating the first monster.

Nothing wrong with presenting counter-arguments (and the point you raise on Cave Troll is a valid one, IMHO), but as I found out once we hit Nymph, sometimes you just have to accept the fact that the majority may be at odds with your assessment, and just grin and bear it.

Oh, that's what you meant. Could be interesting I suppose.

Might be interesting to lump this in with (after) the NPC traits from DMG2 once we start on them.

Are there other "pseudo-templates" that could be added for review, I wonder?

[Troacctid]

I think undead immunities have been underrated for basically this whole book tbh.

[Beni-Kujaku]

Reading the original thread for... research purposes, I found that the (regular) Umber Hulk was rated as +0 in the chart. While Inevitability rated it at +0 in their post, they said that it might warrant +1 or -0, and both answers in the thread said that it was much more of a -0 than +0.

I agree that it is probably a -0 (but then again, I'm generally more on the "underestimating monsters" side of arguments), and I'm not sure if it should be changed so long after the post, but I wanted to know what you thought of it. Should we change the Umber Hulk entry on the chart from +0 to -0, following the two people's votes, or keep it at +0?

[Caelestion]

If we start retroactively changing things, where do we stop? We'll be forever going backwards.

[Beni-Kujaku]

If we start retroactively changing things, where do we stop? We'll be forever going backwards.

The thing is, here, the votes were kinda unanymous. I agree that we should not re-rate things, it's just that it seems to me that the rating here is pretty clear, and doesn't reflect what is written on the LA table.

Might be interesting to lump this in with (after) the NPC traits from DMG2 once we start on them.

Are there other "pseudo-templates" that could be added for review, I wonder?

There is obviously the various "Awakened something" from the eponymous spells, but since we already rated everything as if it already had skills and feats, maybe this isn't really relevant. More interesting but quite hard to rate and situational is "Axiomatic creature" from BoED, and even more difficult tending towards outright unrateable would be Simulacrum (yes, it can't gain levels, so it's not really appropriate for a PC, but might make an interesting character if you want to play a creature in a lower-level one-shot game. What character would you like to play for today's 12th level game? I would like a Tarrasque's Simulacrum's Simulacrum.)
Ravenloft Player's Handbook has alternative rules to pley a few undead. Notably, there is the ancient vampires rules that increases the stats of really long-lived vampires. While not a template per se, it is almost the same, complete with even a challenge rating (no LA, though), so it may be better if we look at it if we ever do the other creatures and templates of the book.

[Emberlily]

Something that comes up a lot with melee characters is the importance of becoming larger. Without access to cheap Enlarge Person boosts, does that at all balance out undead immunities for a melee character? I might be missing a cheap way of upscaling undead, though.

[liquidformat]

In regards the Cave Troll, remember that Undead immunities are very valuable. The Troll has a poor will save, poor mental stats, and no innate defences against mind-affecting attacks or things like Ray of Stupidity. Some relatively low level spells and abilities can shut it down, hard. Since we've been rating undead for so long, it's easy to overlook that these immunities are part of what we are rating for this book in the most part.

End of the day, there's a lot of monsters where I disagreed with the final rating, but unless we have this as a community vote, and are taking the most popular and/or median reply, we'd never get past rating the first monster.

Nothing wrong with presenting counter-arguments (and the point you raise on Cave Troll is a valid one, IMHO), but as I found out once we hit Nymph, sometimes you just have to accept the fact that the majority may be at odds with your assessment, and just grin and bear it.

Very true undead immunities are a decently big deal that I wasn't weighing enough. Even still I don't think Wheep is a more powerful monster than the Cave Troll, I don't really want to go back and change the rating of the cave troll I just don't think Wheep gets enough to be clearly superior to a cave troll. Sure the cave troll is much more susceptible to spells, however, wheep is much more susceptible to damage, it has half the hp of a cave troll and 58hp at level 9 is small enough to be one shotted, though its less so in this case since wheep has good ac but it is still a major concern.

Something that comes up a lot with melee characters is the importance of becoming larger. Without access to cheap Enlarge Person boosts, does that at all balance out undead immunities for a melee character? I might be missing a cheap way of upscaling undead, though.

Hidden Talent [Expansion] or a single level dip of psychic warrior gives a slightly better version of enlarge person for the investment of one feat (or an item with the feat), so it really isn't that much of an issue.
The big difference which even shows up in this case, is undead tend to be very weak against physical damage where as your standard beatsticks tend to be weak against spells focused around will saves. So that ends up being very DM dependent I have been in a lot of games where the DM is very beatstick heavy with their encounters throughout all levels, in such a game the undead immunities are pretty forgettable and their low hp becomes a glaring issue for undead beatsticks. I have also been in games where the dm is very spell/caster heavy in their encounters and in those games the immunities are much more helpful than the large hp pool.
Because these are optimization boards they tend to fixate on caster supremacy and fixate on the importance of immunities.

In game I can count the number of times on a single hand that a dm has cast charm spell and debuff spells like Ray of Stupidity on our group so the value of some stuff really varies depending on your group...

[danielxcutter]

Doesn't Expansion only last for one round/ML?

[liquidformat]

yes, however investing 2 power gets you to 10 min/level which isn't too bad though its still not as optimal as permanent enlarge person...

[danielxcutter]

Can't. Hidden Talent only gives you an effective ML of 1 without levels in a manifester class.

[ciopo]

isn't Expansion 1min/level in the actual book? with a confusing augment, which got errata'd to 10min, but without actual errata to the unaugmented duration? that's what I remember at least

[danielxcutter]

Is it? Might have confused it with something else, in which case ignore my last statement entirely.

[ciopo]

in the online srd it's 1round/level augmentable to 10min/level, if I remember right in the book it's 1min/level, but the augment says "increase from round/level to min/level" and the errata somewhat unhelpfully only mentions the augment, without addressing whether the unaugmented duration is to be errata'ed to round/level or not.

[Thurbane]

There is obviously the various "Awakened something" from the eponymous spells, but since we already rated everything as if it already had skills and feats, maybe this isn't really relevant. More interesting but quite hard to rate and situational is "Axiomatic creature" from BoED, and even more difficult tending towards outright unrateable would be Simulacrum (yes, it can't gain levels, so it's not really appropriate for a PC, but might make an interesting character if you want to play a creature in a lower-level one-shot game. What character would you like to play for today's 12th level game? I would like a Tarrasque's Simulacrum's Simulacrum.)
Ravenloft Player's Handbook has alternative rules to pley a few undead. Notably, there is the ancient vampires rules that increases the stats of really long-lived vampires. While not a template per se, it is almost the same, complete with even a challenge rating (no LA, though), so it may be better if we look at it if we ever do the other creatures and templates of the book.

Great call on Awaken, I think that would make a very worthy pseudo-template to be voted on!

Simulacrum...hmmm. Not really sure about that, comes with a lot of baggage/issues, but...maybe?

Axiomatic can be addressed once we get to the relevant book, I think.

I think 3rd party is a bit beyond the scope of these threads. I get that Ravenloft is somewhat-licensed 3rd party, but with so much official stuff to review, I'd have to vote no.

That's not to say that someone couldn't start their own thread similar to this, that goes beyond the scope of books likely to be covered here. There's a ton of Dragonlance, Ravenloft, Kalmar and 3E Diablo stuff that could be reviewed, along with outright 3rd party like Tome of Horrors, Advanced Bestiary etc.

[Troacctid]

Diablo is 1st party, technically.

[Beni-Kujaku]

I think 3rd party is a bit beyond the scope of these threads. I get that Ravenloft is somewhat-licensed 3rd party, but with so much official stuff to review, I'd have to vote no.

I also thought it was 3rd party‚ but then I reread it (some free preview of the book‚ I don't own it) ‚ and saw the holy seal of "Wizards of the Coast officials" on the 3rd page. So this is definitely 1st party. Very far from being the book I would prioritize rating here‚ but still‚ if you wanna play an ancient vampire in a Villainous Competition‚ you're technically allowed to.

[Emberlily]

I'm putting my vote for +0. It seems like a very effective package for a melee character, but even with high defenses, the HP will never be able to get that high and undead immediately die at 0, instead of at a certain negative HP, making it even more of a threat. It can be hard to get hit or fail a save with these numbers pumped up, yes, but every hit that does land is going to be very dangerous. And while an optimization-high board might look down on AoE damage effects, save for half damage will add up fast when you have low HP.

I might be a bit biased because I want to give good things to melee characters... but also, someone pointed out at some point (I've been scrolling through the archives of this thread lately) that monsters with innate casting tend to be treated to lower LAs because they're balanced against high-powered full-caster PC classes while melee monsters get balanced against something like a barbarian, so I feel like my bias might help balance that out.

[Tzardok]

I think I'll vote for +1.

[H_H_F_F]

... but also, someone pointed out at some point (I've been scrolling through the archives of this thread lately) that monsters with innate casting tend to be treated to lower LAs because they're balanced against high-powered full-caster PC classes while melee monsters get balanced against something like a barbarian, so I feel like my bias might help balance that out.

Small note for the future: I believe that is not a bug, but a feature - which means actively trying to "balance that out" is not very productive. I get that that's not what you're doing now though. I could see +0, I just think +1 is a better fit.

[Emberlily]

Oh yeah I'm not actively trying to push against that, I just know that I probably have a bias. Honestly, I tend to be happier with both kinds of monsters getting lower LA, because I love monsters in general; I just feel a bit happier when it happens to the ones that are relying on strength.

[Thurbane]

I might be a bit biased because I want to give good things to melee characters... but also, someone pointed out at some point (I've been scrolling through the archives of this thread lately) that monsters with innate casting tend to be treated to lower LAs because they're balanced against high-powered full-caster PC classes while melee monsters get balanced against something like a barbarian, so I feel like my bias might help balance that out.

I'll admit, it took me a long time to reconcile myself with that. I still feel that giving MORE powerful monsters LOWER LA because they are casters is counterintuitive (at best), but I am in the minority, so I try to work within the established framework.

I must admit, through, it has almost certainly made me be less conservative when rating non-casting creatures. I don't do this maliciously or as a counterbalance, as such, but it has definitely made me revaluate my voting criteria.

[GreatWyrmGold]

I also thought it was 3rd party‚ but then I reread it (some free preview of the book‚ I don't own it) ‚ and saw the holy seal of "Wizards of the Coast officials" on the 3rd page. So this is definitely 1st party. Very far from being the book I would prioritize rating here‚ but still‚ if you wanna play an ancient vampire in a Villainous Competition‚ you're technically allowed to.

takes notes
If this is somehow viable for a future VC, I'm blaming you.

I'll admit, it took me a long time to reconcile myself with that. I still feel that giving MORE powerful monsters LOWER LA because they are casters is counterintuitive (at best)...

It is. But if we rate everyone against the same scale, either fighter monsters are always going to be better than fighters or wizard monsters are always going to be useless.

[Debatra]

Not calling it quite yet, but the votes so far, as of 392:

+0 - Troacctid, Efrate, liquidformat, Emberlily, Remuko
+1 - Morphic tide, Thurbane, H_H_F_F, Caelestion, Tzardok, Beni-Kujaku, Debatra

Tied at five each. Five to seven, in favor of +1

[Beni-Kujaku]

Not calling it quite yet, but the votes so far:

+0 - Beni-Kujaku, Troacctid, Efrate, liquidformat, Emberlily
+1 - Morphic tide, Thurbane, H_H_F_F, Caelestion, Tzardok

Tied at five each.

I'm going to change mine to +1. I believe the monster has enough numbers and options to be quite overwhelming compared to level 9 characters, and be more balanced in ECL 10.

[Remuko]

I'll throw in for +0

[Troacctid]

I also thought it was 3rd party‚ but then I reread it (some free preview of the book‚ I don't own it) ‚ and saw the holy seal of "Wizards of the Coast officials" on the 3rd page. So this is definitely 1st party. Very far from being the book I would prioritize rating here‚ but still‚ if you wanna play an ancient vampire in a Villainous Competition‚ you're technically allowed to.

No, it is 3rd party.

[Beni-Kujaku]

No, it is 3rd party.

Then I don't know what 3rd party mean. Isn't the "WotC official Licensed" seal enough to be 1st party? If not, what is?

[Tzardok]

Then I don't know what 3rd party mean. Isn't the "WotC official Licensed" seal enough to be 1st party? If not, what is?

Something that was made by WotC themselves.

[liquidformat]

Then I don't know what 3rd party mean. Isn't the "WotC official Licensed" seal enough to be 1st party? If not, what is?

I think the official licensed books are 1.5 or second party? Sure they are more official than sources that have no WotC licensing and just use the rules like green Ronin but still aren't made by WotC...

[Troacctid]

Then I don't know what 3rd party mean. Isn't the "WotC official Licensed" seal enough to be 1st party? If not, what is?

1st party means it was published by Wizards of the Coast. The only 3e Ravenloft book that was published by Wizards of the Coast is Expedition to Castle Ravenloft. The one you found there is from another company that essentially paid WotC for permission to use the official Ravenloft IP in their d20 products.

A list of official 1st party books for this edition of D&D can be found in the product key at the bottom of any of the consolidated lists.