A solution to LA?

[Angrydad]

I think the giant's Fort save should be +15. And they get low-light vision and darkvision, FWIW.

As for them being close in power. . . not that close, from where I'm standing! If they were both greatsword wielders, for example (a pretty typical Fighter build), then while the human could have say, Greater Weapon Specialisation, and so - without taking magical/unusual items into account - might be doing 2d6+7 damage, with whatever Power Attack might provide as well, the giant might be doing 3d6+15, with the same PA potential of course. Without PA, that's an average of 14 vs. an average of 25.5, per hit. Then there's reach. . .

Comparing all those extras, including fairly crazy stats and insane armour, to 4 feats, 12 skill points, and access to higher level Fighter feats. . . it doesn't really seem like a competition, even.

Giving the giant gear as if they were a few levels lower is an interesting idea. . . but I'm still not sure that would balance things out for the ppor old human here.

Or am I missing something, regarding all these numbers and stuff?

I'm with you on this. The giant in the example has a lot more bonuses to stats, natural armor, reach, etc. that make it way more powerful than the human in the example. What my group does is simply this: if a player wants to be a monster we look at its LA (minotaur for +2, for example). If the party's average level would allow for a character with a LA of +2 (meaning the party is level 3 or higher) then the player makes a minotaur character who has 2 levels less in a heroic class. He/she doesn't get any of the racial HD, feats, skill points, and such but does get the special abilities, stat bonuses, skill bonuses, etc. I've found that this works out pretty well and would allow for people to play things like Trolls at 6th level instead of 11th, or Stone Giants at level 5 instead of level 16.

 

[Kerrick]

I think the giant's Fort save should be +15. And they get low-light vision and darkvision, FWIW.

Ah, you're right - I must've forgotten the fighter's +2.

As for them being close in power. . . not that close, from where I'm standing! If they were both greatsword wielders, for example (a pretty typical Fighter build), then while the human could have say, Greater Weapon Specialisation, and so - without taking magical/unusual items into account - might be doing 2d6+7 damage, with whatever Power Attack might provide as well, the giant might be doing 3d6+15, with the same PA potential of course. Without PA, that's an average of 14 vs. an average of 25.5, per hit. Then there's reach. . .

Combat-wise, yeah... the giant's got a fair advantage. So far we've only been comparing fighters, though - what about a cleric, or a mage? I'll do the aboleth wizard from the MM after work.

Comparing all those extras, including fairly crazy stats and insane armour, to 4 feats, 12 skill points, and access to higher level Fighter feats. . . it doesn't really seem like a competition, even.

You mean the +11 natural armor? Yeah, that's way too much. Rock throwing/catching are worth two feats, and darkvision is barely worth a feat.

Giving the giant gear as if they were a few levels lower is an interesting idea. . . but I'm still not sure that would balance things out for the ppor old human here.

I was originally going to suggest giving the giant gear based on his character level ONLY - i.e., he'd get basic gear to start. He has more than enough strength to blow through DR, and hit points to spare, and he certainly doesn't need any stat boosters. I think, though, that I screwed up - he should have 7 racial HD, along with his abilities, which would make him ECL 11. Something like:

Stone giant Ftr 1 (ECL 12)

HD: 7d8+1d10+48 (85 hp)
BAB: +8
AB: +15
Saves: Fort +13, Ref +5, Will +3
Stats*: Str 30, Dex 17, Con 23, Int 12, Wis 12, Cha 8
Skill points: 33
Feats: 4
Extras: Large size, rock throwing/catching, increased reach/speed, +11 natural armor (according to UK's guidelines, should be +5 at most).

And the human fighter 12 (ECL 12)

HD: 12d10+36 (102)
BAB: +12
AB: +14
Saves: Fort +11, Ref +5, Will +5
Stats: Str 15*, Dex 13, Con 16*, Int 12, Wis 12, Cha 8
Skill points: 53 (counting extra points for human)
Feats: 10
Extras: None

*Stat boost applied

How's that?

What my group does is simply this: if a player wants to be a monster we look at its LA (minotaur for +2, for example). If the party's average level would allow for a character with a LA of +2 (meaning the party is level 3 or higher) then the player makes a minotaur character who has 2 levels less in a heroic class. He/she doesn't get any of the racial HD, feats, skill points, and such but does get the special abilities, stat bonuses, skill bonuses, etc. I've found that this works out pretty well and would allow for people to play things like Trolls at 6th level instead of 11th, or Stone Giants at level 5 instead of level 16.

That's a pretty simple way to do it, similar to NWN's version.

 

[Kerrick]

Yugh. It's becoming increasingly obvious (IMO, at least) that there's no hard and fast solution. I'm sure some of you are saying "I told you so!" but I had to find out for myself - I'm stubborn like that. Course, I keep using Large races, which are always going to be more powerful. I was going to do the aboleth, but my shoulder aches too much to do anything useful tonight.

Anyway, here's one last effort: a minotaur vs. a human fighter, after a bit more playing around.

Minotaur Ftr 1 (ECL 7)

HD: 4d8+1d10+20 (43 hp)
BAB: +5
AB: +11
Saves: Fort +11, Ref +3, Will +2
Stats: Str 23, Dex 13, Con 18, Int 8, Wis 10, Cha 6
Extras: Large size, darkvision, gore/charge, natural cunning, NA +5

Human fighter 7 (ECL 7)

HD: 7d10+14 (52 hp)
BAB +7
AB: +10
Saves: Fort +7, Ref +3, Will +2
Stats: Str 16, Dex 13, Con 14, Int 12, Wis 10, Cha 8
Feats: 6
Extras: None

Though their numbers are more or less equal, the minotaur's large size once again tips the scales in his favor.

 

[Runestar]

The problem with the OP's premise is fairly elementary.

A monster's LA already factors (or at least, it should) in the mitigating effect of its racial HD, which wotc acknowledges as being inferior to class lvs. For example, a hill giant is LA+4 exactly because of its 12 giant HD. If you were to replace all its HD with class lvs, you will need to further increase its LA to compensate, because it is now comparatively stronger.

For example, compare the MM ogre with the RoD half-ogre. The ogre clearly grants better bonuses, yet both are LA+2 because the ogre is ham-strung by his 4 giant HD. Conversely, the half-ogre has the benefit of being able to take class lvs right from the start.

To me, LA exists for a reason. Yes, it sucks, but it still has its uses. And the reason why I feel it should remain is not so much because it is that good, but because all the alternatives I have seen so far are much worse!

 

[Kerrick]

The problem with the OP's premise is fairly elementary.

A monster's LA already factors (or at least, it should) in the mitigating effect of its racial HD, which wotc acknowledges as being inferior to class lvs.

I'm not so sure about that. Every monster entry (that allows for class levels) says, "A <insert monster name> has x levels of <creature type>..." Since you mentioned the ogre, we'll use that one:

Racial Hit Dice: An ogre begins with four levels of giant, which provide 4d8 Hit Dice, a base attack bonus of +3, and base saving throw bonuses of Fort +4, Ref +1, and Will +1.

Which means to me that they're treating racial HD as equal to class levels. I can certainly see nothing in the books that states monster levels are worth less than PC levels. UK says that HD should be 2/3 the ECL (I was reading over his Challenging Challenge Ratings thread last night). He says somewhere in there how WotC valued RHD, but I can't find it now.

Anyway, I'm not directly equating monster levels to class levels - there IS an increase in ECL with the conversion (or, more precisely, a reduction in number of RHD). The stone giant's 14 HD, converted to class levels, end up at 9 effective levels of giant. I can fold the abilities into the "class levels" like a normal class, but it fails to account for the giant's size and ridiculously high strength.

 

[Runestar]

UK says that HD should be 2/3 the ECL (I was reading over his Challenging Challenge Ratings thread last night). He says somewhere in there how WotC valued RHD, but I can't find it now.

Some racial HD are clearly more powerful than others, such as outsider/dragon HD vs fey/undead HD. At lower lvs, I would say the former is almost worth a pure class lv of its own. At higher lv, maybe 2 for 1, since you are still not getting any class features.

but it fails to account for the giant's size and ridiculously high strength.

Size can theoretically be simulated using a permanancied enlarge person. Str bonuses pretty much just equate a higher to-hit/damage bonus, unless you expect to have scenarios where a high str will come into play fairly often, such as needing to clear passes and the like. For instance, +16str gives you +8 to-hit/+12 damage with a 2-handed weapon, roughly equivalent to +14 to-hit in tandem with power attack. Or a fighter with the weapon spec/mastery feat tree.

Higher NA is a little harder. Early on, it really just makes up for the monster's inability to wear heavy armour and its likely dex penalty. But this limitation becomes moot once it takes its first class lv.

Also, IIRC, wotc determined ECL by comparing snapshots of monster PCs against PCs of the appropriate level. Which means the accuracy with which LA is priced is dependent on how optimized (or lack thereof) the benchmark PCs are...

 

[Kerrick]

Some racial HD are clearly more powerful than others, such as outsider/dragon HD vs fey/undead HD. At lower lvs, I would say the former is almost worth a pure class lv of its own. At higher lv, maybe 2 for 1, since you are still not getting any class features.

Yeah. Obviously you've read v5 of his Challenge Ratings doc - dragon HD are nearly worth the same as PC HD (sans equipment) and undead are about half.

Size can theoretically be simulated using a permanancied enlarge person. Str bonuses pretty much just equate a higher to-hit/damage bonus, unless you expect to have scenarios where a high str will come into play fairly often, such as needing to clear passes and the like. For instance, +16str gives you +8 to-hit/+12 damage with a 2-handed weapon, roughly equivalent to +14 to-hit in tandem with power attack. Or a fighter with the weapon spec/mastery feat tree.

Higher NA is a little harder. Early on, it really just makes up for the monster's inability to wear heavy armour and its likely dex penalty. But this limitation becomes moot once it takes its first class lv.

Yeah. Most monster abilities lose their effectiveness (or are reduced) over time, but size/high strength is always valuable. Natural armor is advantageous only until other PCs gain access to amulets of NA, barkskin, etc.

What I'm thinking, after reading over that thread again, is going with a straight ECL system - no CR, no LA, just ECL. CR is really meaningless anyway, since we equate it to ECL to figure out how monsters rate compared to PCs, and for adding class levels to monsters. LA would likewise become pointless - ECL automatically includes it. It's effectively something like 4E's level system, but not as obvious. Instead of saying "L12 striker" or whatever, monsters would be rated by ECL, and you can say "Okay, an ECL 12 monster is roughly equivalent to a L12 PC, and x number of them can give my party a challenge."

 

[Runestar]

There might still be some discrepancies. After all, cr and ECL measure 2 very different things, and should never be used interchangeably.

Remember that cr merely measures how tough a monster is against a standard party (ie: how much damage it can do in that 5 rounds it gets), while ECL measures how useful the monster is as a PC in a standard party. Likewise, monster npcs are always weaker than their PC counterparts because the latter get the benefit of superior stats (via point buy) and better eq selection (wealth as appropriate for their ECL), while the former is stuck with base 10s and basic mundane gear.

This means that certain abilities won't count towards cr, but may factor into LA. Take for example, a racial ability to use both cure light wounds and aid at-will. Normally, this is moot to a monster npc. It won't have enough time to heal during combat anyways. But it is clearly very useful to have in a party. You can all enter every fight with aid on, and heal everyone back up to full after combat. So it is definitely worth something.

Yeah. Most monster abilities lose their effectiveness (or are reduced) over time

True, that is another problem. For instance, innate flight is very powerful to have at low lvs, but near worthless at higher lvs (where eq substitutes for it very cheaply). Outside of having it scale with level to lower an otherwise higher LA (like what they did with the raptorian), I am not sure how to tackle it...

 

[Kerrick]

There might still be some discrepancies. After all, cr and ECL measure 2 very different things, and should never be used interchangeably.

CR and ECL are like pounds and kilograms - they measure the exact same thing, but they use a different standard.

Remember that cr merely measures how tough a monster is against a standard party (ie: how much damage it can do in that 5 rounds it gets), while ECL measures how useful the monster is as a PC in a standard party.

You're right, as far it goes. But I'm using UK's system, which measures all the monster's abilities, whether or not it actually gets to use them in a normal fight - because really, you can't predict whether or not the monster will or won't be able to use them in a given fight, so it should factor in all the time. UK's v6 will be incorporating a lot of the things he talked about in that thread. He links to a couple conversions of epic adventures (this one's a good example) using ECLs instead of LAs/CRs.

Likewise, monster npcs are always weaker than their PC counterparts because the latter get the benefit of superior stats (via point buy) and better eq selection (wealth as appropriate for their ECL), while the former is stuck with base 10s and basic mundane gear.

Once you turn a monster into an NPC, it gets the standard array - see the kobold or goblin. PCs would get the heroic array, if you even use point buy, which many groups don't.

 

[Runestar]

UK's v6 will be incorporating a lot of the things he talked about in that thread. He links to a couple conversions of epic adventures (this one's a good example) using ECLs instead of LAs/CRs.

Seems a little hit and miss. While I agree with multiple weaker creatures are each weaker than a single stronger foe, he seems to neglect the fact that multiple foes get more combined actions between them. For example, 3 balors (or make that 6, if you have the 3 balors summon in 3 more balors) can easily daze-lock the entire party with blasphemy (and then alternate that with other attacks like implosion or dominate monster), something a single demogorgon would have trouble accomplishing. Likewise, I daresay from experience that 2 wizards are much tougher than a single wizard 2 lvs higher, simply because they get to unload twice as many spells.

Revising the class npcs' cr was a nice touch though. I have been searching for a suitable formula for quite a while now, and his seems consistent enough that I would consider using it.

Some other articles I don't agree with (like his revised fighter), but that is another debate for another time.

CR and ECL are like pounds and kilograms - they measure the exact same thing, but they use a different standard.

I still beg to differ.