ECL Races, EVER worth it?

[HeapThaumaturgist]

I see the reasoning behind the way it was put together, but I've also seen that ECL creatures are often LETHALLY nerfed ... challenges intended for characters of X level often pose unbelievably risks for characters who are 2-3 levels "behind" their compatriots. In the games around here, the ECL characters often drop like flies.

For the game of one of my personal friends, we went through and took the "base" races and adjusted them out either to be closer to a true +1 LA or a +0 LA for those races his campaign setting put forth as "common". Hobgoblins, in particular. Many times it was as simple as stripping out the racial HD and working the LA off of the pure ability changes.

Even so, nobody wanted to play a Hob in that game. If it weren't for me, almost nobody would have played a Drow in this game I'm in now.

As it is, the other Drow is the GM's teenaged son ... and, apparently, in his home game that he runs for his kids and their friends (all 11-15) they're all happily playing Minotaurs and Bugbears and all the rest ... because the difference between "LA" and "ECL" confused him and he thought, say, a "LA +1" bugbear meant you adjusted up by one level as opposed to FOUR. Thus why everybody pounced on Elf and Dwarf as the core races more readily available in the setting ...

--fje

 

[Tzarevitch]

I have played quite a few creatues with ECL and in answer to your question about whether or not the ECL is worth it, the answer is that it depends on what race and what classes you are using. I have played in a number of high-level campaigns to date where Level adjudtment races have ruled the roost and here is what I have learned:

First of all, there are effectively two types of ECL races: Those with just Level Adjustment and those with LA and HD. Creatures with AL alone rarely have LA higher than +2. These can be easy to stomach because 1-2 levels can be a worthwhile trade off in return for some significant ability that the creature grants.

LA and HD races can be much more problematic. They really only work for classes where you don't need to have too many levels of the class to do your job because they don't advance ANYTHING but BAB, Saves and some skills. These really are unusable for spellcasters because you can't usually afford to give up that much casting level and still be a serious spellcaster.

To expand, there are also two categories of classes with regard to LA and HD: Classes that don't require much other than BAB, HP, skills, feats and saves, and those that do. Fighter for example, fits into the former category. All it really has is BAB, Feats, d10 HD and lousy skill selection. Spellcasters, monks and rogues fit into the latter category.

Fighters benefit a lot from ECL races and can even affort to take ones with HD because the boosts to STR and CON for playing a half-ogre for example can partially make up for the lost HD. Bugbears also work well as fighters because you only loose 1 level to LA. Their 3d8HD is not that different from 3d10 expecially when you add their improved CON. Also, the Bugbear's base saves are the same as the fighter's AND they get a better range of skills, +4 natural armor, +4 bonus to move silently, darkvision, +4Str and +2dex in addition +2Con. You do loose 1 BAB from the LA level and 1 more from the Humanoid HD, but the +4 Str fills the gap and increases your damage output as well.

In summary, over a normal human fighter of same ECL and same base attributes a bugbear fighter of same total levels has the same hit chance, greater damage, much higher AC and better skills. Your defecits include a bit fewer HP (this becomes less of a problem at higher level when the bugbear takes fighter levels too), fewer feats, weak Cha (oh darn!) and poorer will and reflex saves (partially mitigated by higher Dex). Other fighter-type classes also benefit from LA races (Barbarian and ranger particularly). Races that grant immunities, SR, additional movement modes or useful spell-like abilities are also quite worth it for fighter-types to take, even at the cost of a couple of LA or HD because they add capabilities that those classes don't normally get.

ECL and HD are not nearly as kind to spellcasters or classes which have abilities that increase only with class levels or have special skill sets (monks, rogues etc). These classes can afford an ECL or 2 but rarely more than that unless the race has an ability that is VERY useful because they simply loose too much from their classes and gain not enough in return from their race.

Tzarevitch

 

[Thanee]

All mechanics aside, you want the guy who decides to play a "normal" character to feel like he's at least a little bit better off than the guy who gets to play the "weird" character, otherwise everyone ends up playing weird characters and it makes you wonder why the weirdos aren't always the famous people of the world.

That's what I was going to say, as it is what I feel is one of the big reasons, why the ECL is usually actually a bit higher than it should be, if it was completely balanced against the core races. I think this is a good thing, actually.

But even with that in mind, some races seem to have an awfully high LA for what they get, while others seem to get away a bit too easily. The LA should probably have half-steps, to more accurately figure out a creature's LA.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Conaill]

Yes, races with ECL can be worth it.

However, you have to understand that the LA estimation is essentially based on a "best-case" analysis of the race, i.e. based on comparison with the character class that would be optimally synergistic with said race. And in almost all cases, that will *NOT* tend to be a spellcaster.

So yes, for each race, there should be some choice of base character class that would make that race's ECL worth it's while. But if you start out with a character concept in mind, some choices of race may be very much underpowered...

 

[sparxmith]

Aasimar Paladin

I think that what everyone has said to this point is generally true. The one exception I'd make is an Aasimar Paladin. The Wis and Cha bonuses plus the energy resistance and darkvision greatly overcompensate for a 1 lvl loss at the low levels. Plus being a native outsider, they are immune to the Hold Person spell. Totally worth it in my opinion.

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

As an addendum to what Tzarevitch said, it also depends on what the racial HD are, and how they'll benefit the character concept.

For example, Monstrous Humanoid is very good; Good BAB, Refl, and Will, and d8 HP. Outsider and Dragon are also quite good. However, Humanoid and Giant really aren't that great, with their middle BABs, and Fey is just plain out there. I mean, you can play an ogre fighter or barbarian just fine, but a redcap is just not going to be very effective in the long run, even with its +1 Str & Con/level.

In general, races with an ECL of mixed racial HD and LA are preferable to those with just LA; an anthropomorphic tiger and a half-dragon have an ECL of 3, but the tiger's more durable. It doesn't matter so much at higher levels, but if you're starting at low levels, it's a life-saver. Lower is usually better, regardless; for one game, I picked anthro tiger over mechanically more powerful versions (i.e. anthro cheetah or leopard), because its ECL was lower and the LA would be eaiser to buy off.

Also, you don't have to JUST play melee types with ECL characters; it's possible to make a useful spellcaster with a reasonably high ECL, just harder. My anthro tiger was accompanied by a fey'ri druid, who was quite useful...well, once she got decent spells and wild shape. Which took a while. I'd be tempted to play a tiefling psion, or an aasimar cleric, but nothing much above +1 LA.

Brad

 

[I'm A Banana]

Worst of all, not all designers seem to subscribe to the same theory about LAs. When one (say, the poor hobgoblin) has a LA calculated using your "err on the side of caution" plan and another (perhaps the half-giant or goliath) has a LA calculated to be equal to a character level, the hobgoblin isn't just sub-par - he's clearly pathetic. Worse, a DM who opens up a variant like LA buyoff to make the hobgoblin playable ends up with overpowered half-giants and goliaths.

This, IMHO, is kind of a big deal. And the theory that "LA's are designed to punish wierdness and reward normalcy" leads to things like the Warforged being +0 (my pet conspiracy theory is that the only reason they are that is to encourage them as a core race, not from good game design.... ).

In other words, the LA of a creature is dependant upon how weird whoever designs the setting decides they are. It's not a game mechanic anymore, it's a way to push your pets and punish those who want to play creatively. It's a way to enforce a core. And that's kind of cheap.

Should the guy playing the warforged feel more important than the guy playing the aasimar? Should the guy playing the elf feel more important that the guy playing the warforged? Should the halfling feel like the have "something extra" over the gnomes because the gnomes are so exotic and strange? Why not give all races other than human an LA, because everything else is exotic and weird and the human should feel special? Heck, why not restrict everyone else's classes and maximum level, because humans should feel special?

Wasn't 3e built to accomodate a feel that it's YOUR game, and that the players and DM's can decide what's exotic and what's normative for themselves? If a DM allows a creature as a PC at all, he's automatically saying that it won't be exotic for this particular party. The balance between a tiefling and a halfling shouldn't be "wierdness," because that is subjective. It should be that both can contribute something unique and special to a party.

If LA was implemented as a way to make the core races feel "special" (as if being core races wasn't in and of itself a way that they are special), it puts a restriction on how the game can be "correctly played." It harkens back to playing 2e without level limits. The designers are telling the game players what should and shouldn't be important in their game. Shouldn't that decision be left up to the players and DM's themselves? And shouldn't the rules support DM's in making that decision, rather than enforcing their own preference with ham-fisted handicapping of things that are rather arbitrarily determined to be "exotic"?

 

[S'mon]

I think that ECL is a good idea but the default settings are to punish weirdness, yup. My solution is to not allow weirdness I don't want, and set more realistic ECLs otherwise, so eg IMC a standard 3 hit dice Bugbear is ECL 3.

 

[Psion]

One of the new players joining my group asked to play a minotaur.

As you may know, they are ECL 8 creatures. But I have a race of lesser minotaurs in my game that I never upgraded to 3.5.

And I am thinking of replacing my old 3.0 writeup with a tweak of Tauren from WoW RPG.

As to why -- because WoW RPG kicks LAs to the curb and replaces them with paragon classes. Which I think is a really good idea.

I also like the LA reduction rule from Unearthed Arcana. It makes the idea of sinking some levels into a race more palatable, but at the same time gives them some reason to hesitate.

I think whether or not you want wierdos in the game should be a decision for the GM, not the system. As I say in my sig, the rules should serve the game and not vice versa. It was Sean who inspired me to say it the first time, and now he reminds me it is true.

 

[Aust Diamondew]

Some creatures have too high of an ECL some don't. When deciding what a creatures LA is you should think about the kind of racial hit dice it has. In our group we've had werebear-orc barbarian, he kicked butt so did the minotaur pyschik warrior and the rogue pixie did alright too (he died from the players on recklessness).