(Discussion) LA+ race availability - read post first, please vote.

[Kahuna Burger]

OK, there's been quite a bit of talk over on general discussion about Level Adjusted race availability - for any newbies, those are races which cannot start as a first level character because they are too powerful, and thus get equivelent character levels added to the PC just for being of that race. It seems pretty obvious that no one wants to just allow completely new characters to come in with level adjustments, and some folks want to avoid level adjustments entirely. This poll is to feel out general support outside of the judges and compulsive Gen Disc posters.

The poll is multiple answer, though conflicitng ones would be a bad idea. If you are ok with the idea of LA races in general, vote for all those possible solutions to the power issue that you would support.

A bit of expansion on those options.

Negitive levels These work the same as negitive levels imposed by some spells and level draining abilities (-1 to just about everything) but do not turn into true level loss and cannot be removed except by leveling up. So an asimar PC would start out with all of the race abilities but one negitive level. When the PC leveled up, they would gain no class abilities, but just lose the penalties the negitive level was imposing. (they would still be counted as a 2nd level character for XP purposes, as is the case for most of these solutions.)

Racial levels Rather than being given full racial abilities at first level, the character starts out with a LA0 version of the racial abilities and their first class level. When they level up, they gain more of their racial abilities to bring them up to LA +1, but no class adjustments at all (including hit dice). A high LA race PC might be allowed to alternate class and racial levels so as not to fall completely behind on hit points. A player who wanted an Asimar cleric PC, for instance, could start out with one cleric level, no stat adjustments, darkvision and the +2 bonus to spot and listen, and be basicly balanced with a human cleric1. When the character leveled normally, he would gain no hit die or skill points, but get the +2 to wis and cha, energy resistances and daylight use and be considered a 2nd level character for all XP purposes.

Lesser versions This would be similar to the racial levels, but the first level version would be the only one available. So it doesn't really allow LA+ races, just races with similar names and flavor.

PC Tradeout This idea would allow a leveled LEW character who had died or was simply no longer interesting to the player to be traded out for a new character of equivelent XP (or what the XP total would be after raising in the case of a dead character). This higher starting point could be used to accomadate LA+ races or just higher levels in a class.

other if you perfer another method, feel free to add it, or if you support one of the above ideas in a significantly restricted form.

The final decision will likely be up to the judges, who would also have to approve the progression/lesser version/overall LA of each race on a case by case basis, but I think some general input would be good.

Kahuna Burger

[Kahuna Burger]

Now comeon guys, there's been 15 veiws and only 5 votes... i even left an option to vote your apathy, so there's no excuse!

Kahuna Burger

[The Goblin King]

Originally Posted by Kahuna Burger

Now comeon guys, there's been 15 veiws and only 5 votes... i even left an option to vote your apathy

I do appreciate that. Luckily, I have an opinion on the subject. I voted for no +LA races. My reason for this is that I think things should follow the KISS principle. But thats my point of view. IANAJ

[Otakkun]

Unearthed Arcana introduces a new option for LA reduction, named EXPERIENCE POINT COST (page 18). As fasr as I know, all UA is open content, so LEW could use it with no problem. This would allow other races that I've seen interest for to be playable as well (such as gnolls, lizardfolk, etc).

IMO a good restriction (and to keep things in perspective, population wise), every player should be restricted to only one of his three possible characters to have a LA.

[Knight Otu]

The problem with the UA variant is, it only kicks in at higher levels, while people are looking for a solution to allow "ECL races" at a low, best 1st level without upsetting game balance.

[Otakkun]

Originally Posted by Knight Otu

The problem with the UA variant is, it only kicks in at higher levels, while people are looking for a solution to allow "ECL races" at a low, best 1st level without upsetting game balance.

Then maybe it could be used in addition to a solution for low level ECLs. I'd say negative ECLs work ok for low levels, the UA variant works best afterwards.

[Creamsteak]

I'm not proposing this or anything, but one method that's "simple" that I've seen works like this:

You get a -1 to attack rolls, saving throws, and skill checks for each level below the ECL your character is. So, if you were going to play a 4 hit dice creature with a +2 level adjustment at first level, you get a -5 to attack rolls, saving throws, and skill checks. You also only get 1 hit dice per character level, with level adjustments divided evenly throughout the progression (so at 3rd and 6th levels). On level adjustment levels, you regain supernatural and spell like abilities related to the race.

It's not a very simple solution, but if built into a mechanic that works, it could be viable.

That said, I'm still more-or-less for characters being "traded in" when they die or are retired, for a character of either level -1 or level -2 or something along those lines. It's simple, and allows veteran players that lose a battle to rejoin the game, without coming in from scratch. Also, retired PCs are so ripe story stuff...

[Creamsteak]

Wow... I called something simple and not simple in the same post above... stupid me.

[Manzanita]

I voted no. This is why:

- I dont' really want gnolls, lizardfolk, or even goblins wandering into the Inn. I think these sorts of PCs need to have be worked into the campaign on an individual basis.

-I'm uncomfortable with LEW specific races. I'd prefer to keep it simple.

-I'd much rather people focus on world building. I want thieves guilds, wizard academies, legends, cities, history and such. I think these things would be a much more useful contribution to LENWorld.

At some point in the future, I would probably support the PC tradeout option.

[Kahuna Burger]

Originally Posted by Manzanita

-I'm uncomfortable with LEW specific races. I'd prefer to keep it simple.

-I'd much rather people focus on world building. I want thieves guilds, wizard academies, legends, cities, history and such. I think these things would be a much more useful contribution to LENWorld.

if this seems argumentative, just ignore it, but I did want to comment on the overlap between these two comments. I think when done correctly, a new race proposal is as strong a source of world building as any of the ideas you mentioned. The Wildlings, to push my own creation, by their very existance and history flesh out a segment of the LEW map I described in passing into political and social as well as geographic entities. If they are approved, my first move would not be to create one as a character (as I do not currently want to abandon any of mine and am already maxed out) but to use them in a campaign starting with diplomatic finagaling in the ultra ordered land of Utopia, moving on to some combat and trap dodging in the war torn border of the wilding woods, and hopefully progressing to some good RP as the characters decide what side they really want to be on. Having a non-world wise and not very bright super tracker to RP is fun, but the inclusion of the race, its home, it enemies and potential allies in the world was just as important, if not moreso.

Just my two cents. not really about the LA issue when it comes down to it, but going tangental on those comments.

Kahuna Burger

[Manzanita]

I do appreciate your thoughts on the wildings, there, KB. And I do not disagree at all. I think a LEW-specific race or two might be really good. But I fear a proliferation. I think we should agree to limit it to 2 or so, new races and classes, say. I think that discussion may come. For now, I'm voting 'no' categorically. But keep your wildings around. I hope you get to expand your ideas there.

[Creamsteak]

New monsters though, those I think we could have plenty of .

[Knight Otu]

Originally Posted by Creamsteak

New monsters though, those I think we could have plenty of .

Did I mention that I like creating monsters?

Once we get that first bunch of proposals out of the way, we should look in depth at the issue of LA races, though. Maybe even before this.

[Manzanita]

Originally Posted by Kahuna Burger

... The Wildlings, to push my own creation, by their very existance and history flesh out a segment of the LEW map I described in passing into political and social as well as geographic entities. If they are approved, my first move would not be to create one as a character (as I do not currently want to abandon any of mine and am already maxed out) but to use them in a campaign starting with diplomatic finagaling in the ultra ordered land of Utopia, moving on to some combat and trap dodging in the war torn border of the wilding woods, and hopefully progressing to some good RP as the characters decide what side they really want to be on. Having a non-world wise and not very bright super tracker to RP is fun, but the inclusion of the race, its home, it enemies and potential allies in the world was just as important, if not moreso. Kahuna Burger

I was thinking some more about your comments here, KB, and I really like your idea. I think that's how you could get me to vote for a new race, by integrating it into the campaign first. I don't see why you couldn't pursue this idea even if the Wildings are not a player race. Once the Wildings encounter adventurers, and vice versa, make friends (&/or enemies), and become a part of the world, then their inclusion as a PC race becomes more natural and desirable. I think this approach to creating a new PC race would make it more comfortable for all involved.

And I don't think anyone is going to challenge your NPC creations as a DM. I think DMs need to be encouraged, even coddled. Without DMs, where would we be. Here's a toast to all the DMs out there. Thanks.

[Kahuna Burger]

I'm suprized that PC tradeout is the highest ranked option, though I suppose it involves the least content approval (in terms of racial leveling or working out the negitive levels) and only entrusts LA+ PCs to players who have settled in a bit, which could be considerd a good thing too - less chance of making a funky raced character just to hang around the inn being weird and alien... Overall, it seems that LA+ races are a reasonable option, since only a quarter of votes cast activly oppose them.

The poll option mentioned an even XP trade, while creamsteak suggests losing one or even two levels, are there any comments from those who like the tradeout option? (since I don't know of a lot of characters above 2nd right now, a lesser tradeout will continue to restrict opertunities for a while, and I personally think if we're rewarding senority there's no need to chop it in half or more.)

Kahuna Burger

[orsal]

Originally Posted by Kahuna Burger

The poll option mentioned an even XP trade, while creamsteak suggests losing one or even two levels, are there any comments from those who like the tradeout option? (since I don't know of a lot of characters above 2nd right now, a lesser tradeout will continue to restrict opertunities for a while, and I personally think if we're rewarding senority there's no need to chop it in half or more.)

Speaking as one who doesn't like tradeout to begin with (I voted for either negative levels or racial levels), I'd say if we do go that route, I'd prefer that there be some offset. Basically, I don't see one character as being substitutable for another, or experience being transferrable. If we had a "one level lower" rule, then at least keeping the same character would be the easiest and fastest way to advance.

If Jo Guilan had reached second level before fleeing Orussus, I wouldn't be planning to start a character at second level in his place. (Granted, he isn't exactly retired -- I'm leaving open the possibility of reactivating him once a credible IC way to do so emerges.)

[Knight Otu]

I think that it is safe to say that, if we go the tradeout option, the new character will be of a lower effective character level.

One level lower would be the same penalty as dying and being resurrected (but easier accomplished). For some reason, I'm leaning to a two level penalty.

[Kahuna Burger]

Originally Posted by Knight Otu

I think that it is safe to say that, if we go the tradeout option, the new character will be of a lower effective character level.

in spite of the option that gather the votes being for "equal XP (or the XP after raising for a dead character)"? I'm not sure why that should be the assumption.

One level lower would be the same penalty as dying and being resurrected (but easier accomplished). For some reason, I'm leaning to a two level penalty.

er, did you vote for tradeout as an option? I ask because the option listed was for a full xp trade, and while I can see it being death equivelent instead, two levels lower is not what was voted for by a long shot.

I don't want to sound accusatory, and this isn't aimed at you personally, but if something I wasn't in favor of was approved over my objections, I'd like to think that I would allow it to be implemented optimally, rather than trying to "poison pill" it. If PC tradeout is the approved option for LA+ races (and I don't think it needs to be the only one, just the one with the most current approval) I think it should be implemented in a way that people can actually use in the reasonable future. (I don't know whats up in other adventures, but no characters I DM or am in games with are over 3rd right now).

Kahuna Burger

[orsal]

Originally Posted by Kahuna Burger

er, did you vote for tradeout as an option? I ask because the option listed was for a full xp trade, and while I can see it being death equivelent instead, two levels lower is not what was voted for by a long shot.

I don't want to sound accusatory, and this isn't aimed at you personally, but if something I wasn't in favor of was approved over my objections, I'd like to think that I would allow it to be implemented optimally, rather than trying to "poison pill" it.

Well, tradeout at a lower level wasn't one of the options; it is possible, indeed likely IMHO, that many or most of the people voting for tradeout weren't thinking much about the level. It would be fair and democratic, assuming tradeout wins the poll, to implement it with a level penalty if either another poll (taking tradeout as a given, asking about level rules) or informal discussion indicated a clear preference for that. (And said discussion would include those of us who preferred not to have tradeout at all, as well as those who voted for it.) I can't speak for Knight Otu, so I don't know on what grounds (s)he claimed "it is safe to say that" there will be a level offset, but if it might have been based on Otu's reading of LEW opinion last time the rule was proposed.

Originally Posted by Kahuna Burger

If PC tradeout is the approved option for LA+ races (and I don't think it needs to be the only one, just the one with the most current approval) I think it should be implemented in a way that people can actually use in the reasonable future. (I don't know whats up in other adventures, but no characters I DM or am in games with are over 3rd right now).

I've perused the character thread. The highest are third level, but there are a number of them, and several are close to fourth level. If tradeout with a two-level offset is adopted (the harshest I've seen proposed), some players would be able to bring in LA+1 characters if they retired their current characters at the conclusion of their current adventures, which are likely to bring them up to 4th.

Also, even if such a rule couldn't be used in the near future, I don't think it's unreasonable to be making rules with the middle-future in mind. After all, as LEW grows, it'll become harder to keep tweaking the rules as needed.

[Knight Otu]

I should have made it clear that those where my personal feelings and the understanding of the posts of other judges. I don't think (and I may very well be mistaken) that many of the judges would be in favor of a full level/exp tradeout. During the more active times, full tradeout might become too easy for some people's tastes.

Tradeout is quite clearly in the lead now. Do you think it would plummet in favor so much if it was not full tradeout? At -1 level, I'd think it would still be fairly popular, and a few of the current roster of characters could technically benefit from it if it were, by bringing races with a +1 LA into the fold, for a total ECL of 2.

-2 may or may not be too harsh. None of the current characters can benefit from it right now, but could in the near future. I can't really tell why I would tend into this direction, except for the possibility that it might be a bit easier to fix if it is truly too harsh (Meaning, we could either warn everyone that, if they use it now, they might lose a level if we go to -1 from -2, or we could allow those who used it at that time to add another level).

And, if I sounded as if I wanted to speak for all the judges, it wasn't my intention. I was just trying to give my impression, and worded it poorly.

(And for the record, I voted trade-out, negative levels and racial classes)