Shade Race from Dragon #307...ECL +2!?!

[Arcturus_Rugend]

I'd agree that a +2 alone probably wouldn't justify a LA by itself, but what about the physical vs. non-physical abilities and the way they're balanced at character creation? (see above post)

These seem to be contary to the idea that each ability point has a set, fractional ECL value. Honestly, though, I'm not sure if this is a flaw in your logic or the WOTC system.

 

[Arcturus_Rugend]

According to who and what?

Yeah, I'm referring to the DMG and it's discussion on how abilities in certain proportions are roughly equivalent (p. 24)

I see what you are saying, but if we just dismiss this precedent, it's tossing out a significant portion of the rules.

 

[kreynolds]

I'd agree that a +2 alone probably wouldn't justify a LA by itself, but what about the physical vs. non-physical abilities and the way they're balanced at character creation? (see above post)

These seem to be contary to the idea that each ability point has a set, fractional ECL value. Honestly, though, I'm not sure if this is a flaw in your logic or the WOTC system.

More than anything, its a flaw in the game itself. Take Charisma for example. It has so few uses that its value is intrinsically lower than any other stat. Strength is valuable, but is Wisdom actually more valuable? Strength doesn't help you with saving throws, and at least one-third of the game will be forcing you to make those saving throws, regardless of how well you can swing a sword.

I think that Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, and Wisdom all have pretty much the same size slice of the D&D pie, with Intelligence following up behind them, and Charisma trailing at the end. Intelligence, by the way, is only valuable in the same way that Charisma is...spellcasting classes that use it as their primary casting ability score. Otherwise, Intelligence and Charisma have little to do in the game compared to the other stats.

 

[kreynolds]

Yeah, I'm referring to the DMG and it's discussion on how abilities in certain proportions are roughly equivalent (p. 24)

I see what you are saying, but if we just dismiss this precedent, it's tossing out a significant portion of the rules.

And if the precedent is flawed? It is, you know. The DMG is claiming that the physical ability scores are always worth twice as much than the mental ability scores, and that just doesn't make any sense at all. Even so, its not a matter of tossing out the rules. Its about thinking the issue through to completion and using your best judgement, which is what that section of the DMG is all about: case-by-case evaluation.

 

[Murrdox]

I agree with you on that kreynolds, which is one of the reasons Paladins annoy me a bit... or at least the Paladins that my players create.

They borg out an undervalued stat - Charisma, to gain an ungodly benefit to all their saving throws. This is why Aasimar Paladins are unallowed in my group at this point, because I think when you combine Aasimar with a Paladin class, you get a lot more benefit out of the Aasimar than you should for a mere +1 ECL.

Of course, if a couple of my players didn't min/max their characters so much, this wouldn't be a problem!

 

[Arcturus_Rugend]

I guess what really needs to happen is for the ability scores to have equal usefulness. I'm not even sure that 3.5 will be able to address this with the attention it needs.

If the ability scores were truly equally useful, then I'd be more comfortable using your system where each has a roughly equal ECL value. I guess we're stuck doing a case by case for everything... which is why you started this thread to begin with. Doh.

 

[Kid Socrates]

Otherwise, Intelligence and Charisma have little to do in the game compared to the other stats.

I'll argue the Intelligence point with you. Charisma I waffle on -- hack and slash, for non-sorcs or clerics, or to an extent paladins, yeah, it's not so useful. But Intelligence?

"Okay, roll a Spot check."
"I, uh, don't have Spot."
"Huh? Why not?"
"Well, with my Intelligence modifier, I've only got two skill points a level, and Spot wasn't one of the two I chose..."

Skills are important, at least in the games I've played in. Sure, I can clobber stuff pretty well with my high Strength, and dodge around it with my Dexterity, and soak it up with my Constitution, but with low Intelligence and maybe two or three skills? Hades if I know it's there. Or what it is, if I can get away from it, if I can swim in that river, get on that horse, concentrate...

I think something else should be tied to Charisma, but that's a rant for another time.

Oh, and as for the Shade, I'd stick it at +1 ECL. You get an AC bonus, an extra skill point, a lower Will save (why did no one mention this?), less likable, and you can smack ethereal stuff. The ability bonuses more or less even out, making it a simple +0, and then you get a neat added ability. +1. Analyzing -how- it's balanced makes you analyze everything, and then you start pointing out how this doesn't mesh with that, and that's all out of whack, and this here, and that, and then total anarchy. Not a pretty sight.

Or something.

This is Kid Soc.

 

[guido1999]

The Shade in Races of Faerun has an ECL of +4.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

If you are trying to figure out ECL formulas, maybe you should try it with "Bonus Squared" numbers, like it is used in most Magic Item Formulas. (+32 bonus to strength will be 256 more expensive than a +2 bonus to strength...)

For the Asimar example: I think the Aasimar is only worth is +1 ECL if you play a Bard, Sorcerer or Paladin, because the rest of the abilities aren`t really powerful. Nice maybe, but loosing a whole level (which includes 1d4 to 1d12 hitpoints, 2 to 8 skill points, possibly +1 to BAB, +1 to saves?) for it... No, I wouldn`t probably do it, especially not in a game under 6th level characters...

Mustrum Ridcully

 

[Deset Gled]

+2 may be a bit high but with those stats their set up to be the best (non charm)rogues or best wizards. +2 to int without a -2 to a stat that means something to a wizard is almost a+1ecl right there.

A +2 to int might be nice for a wizard, but I doubt I would see many people willing to give up two levels of spellcasting ability for it. Once you hit higher levels, there are so many ways to increase ability scores that I doubt it would even be noticeable.
Also, since their ghost tough abilities don't apply to spells, almost all of the other benefits of the race are lost to wizards as well.

I think this race could easily be set at ECL +1.