Adjudication the LA value of abilities/features that are dynamic (change with level)

[Roman]

I am not sure whether this should be in the Rules or Houserules sections so I am posting it on both...:

I am wondering how to derive value of racial features that give a bonus that improves with levels. For example, let's take the human skill point bonus - they get 4 extra skill points at 1st level and then 1 extra skill point per level. As a result this human ability/feature is dynamic and improves with levels. How do you compare it with static abilities/features to determine its effects on LA?

I guess it may be possible to pick a level at which to compare it, but what level to pick. One possibility would be to choose a mid-point level - like level 10 or 11. For half the level progression the ability would be underpowered and for half it would be overpowered. Using the first or the last (usually 20th) level for comparison purposes does not seem satisfactory. Perhaps some kind of compromise and usage of 5th/6th or 15th/16th level is in order. Or perhaps my approach to try to pick a level for comparison is not the way to go. Hmm... any thoughts?

 

[Arkhandus]

I tend to compare such things to the value of a Constitution or Intelligence increase since the bulk of those scores' benefits scale with level. I consider a human's extra skill points to be worth somewhere around 2/3rds the value of a +2 Intelligence adjustment. So between 1/4th and 1/7th of a +1 Level Adjustment in value.

 

[Roman]

I tend to compare such things to the value of a Constitution or Intelligence increase since the bulk of those scores' benefits scale with level. I consider a human's extra skill points to be worth somewhere around 2/3rds the value of a +2 Intelligence adjustment. So between 1/4th and 1/7th of a +1 Level Adjustment in value.

Hmm, this is an interesting approach and is indeed useful. It certainly makes sense to make such a comparison. For all practical intents and purposes it is sufficient, though I m not sure how you translated it to be 1/4 to 1/7 of a +1 LA in value - I thought a +2 bonus to an ability score is almost worth +1 LA by itself if it is not counterbalanced by a penalty. However, on the theoretical level it still leaves me wondering how they decided on the worth of these progression that improve with level for the abilitites themselves.

 

[Arkhandus]

That's because Savage Species is dung disguised as paper. It has a variety of absurd notions of what consists of a +1 level adjustment or the like. None of the core races would lack a level adjustment under Savage Species' guidelines.

Only in Crazystupidland does +2 to an ability score by itself grant +1 LA.

Generally I'd consider +2 to an ability score to be worth around 1/4 of an LA, give or take a bit depending on the ability score and how much or little synergy it has with the rest of the racial traits.

A vague approximation of my balancing attempts is that I consider a +1 LA to be worth 8-12 feats in power, and that the first 3-5 feats worth of power in a race is ignored as LA+0 material. I consider +2 Str or Dex to roughly equal 4 feats, +2 Con or Int to roughly equal 3 feats, and +2 Wis or Cha to roughly equal 2 or 2-1/2 feats. Very roughly speaking, mind you. I won't bother going into specifics and such that would take up a few paragraphs and include lots of fractional or decimal values for different kinds of racial benefits/drawbacks. In the end I always try and just eyeball it once I get it within the range of acceptable balance.

 

[Roman]

That's because Savage Species is dung disguised as paper. It has a variety of absurd notions of what consists of a +1 level adjustment or the like. None of the core races would lack a level adjustment under Savage Species' guidelines.

Only in Crazystupidland does +2 to an ability score by itself grant +1 LA.

Well yes, I also do not like many of the guidelines in Savage Species. It seems to me, as if the designers intentionally made most of the monster classes too expensive in terms of LA, so as to discourage players from playing them, but that IMO kind of defeats the purpose of the book. If I, as a DM, don't want my players to play a monster class I will not permit it to be played or give it extra penalties, but when I get guidelines from WotC I would like them to be balanced. Unfortunately, because Savage Species contains the only guidelines I know, I am sort of forced to go with their assumptions. I have toyed with the idea of recalculating the relative worth of various bonuses and abilities/features myself, but I have not got around to doing it...

Generally I'd consider +2 to an ability score to be worth around 1/4 of an LA, give or take a bit depending on the ability score and how much or little synergy it has with the rest of the racial traits.

A vague approximation of my balancing attempts is that I consider a +1 LA to be worth 8-12 feats in power, and that the first 3-5 feats worth of power in a race is ignored as LA+0 material. I consider +2 Str or Dex to roughly equal 4 feats, +2 Con or Int to roughly equal 3 feats, and +2 Wis or Cha to roughly equal 2 or 2-1/2 feats. Very roughly speaking, mind you. I won't bother going into specifics and such that would take up a few paragraphs and include lots of fractional or decimal values for different kinds of racial benefits/drawbacks. In the end I always try and just eyeball it once I get it within the range of acceptable balance.

Fair enough... it does seem more sensible than Savage Species assumptions in any case.

Now I am derailing my own topic, but I would really be interested in knowing the details of how you calculated these matters. Of course, if you do not have the time, energy or inclination to write it here, I fully understand - it is a substantial amount of work - but if you simply refrained from posting it for fear that I would not be interested or that the math would confuse me or that it would not be appreciated or a host of related reasons, than I would really appreciate it if you could show me how you arrived at these equivalencies. It might prove useful to me for doing my own recalculations of similar stuff in the future.

 

[Roman]

A vague approximation of my balancing attempts is that I consider a +1 LA to be worth 8-12 feats in power, and that the first 3-5 feats worth of power in a race is ignored as LA+0 material.

Just to clear this up: Does this mean that you consider a character with +1 LA to have abilities equivalent to 8-12 feats in power in total or 8-12 feats in power plus he 3-5 feats in power that is ignored as +0 LA material?

 

[Roman]

I think the formula of what I am looking for should read:

Discounted cost in LA = Cost in LA at level one / ([1 + Discount rate per level] ^ [Level at which the character gets the ability - 1])

Anybody knows what the 'discount rate' per level shoul be?

I suppose the CR system of a challenge doubling every +2 CR could be interpreted as indicating that the same thing happens with levels (since CR does depend on level as well). Assuming this is correct, the discount rate would equal 41.4% (41.42135623730950488016887242097% to be exact), but this seems like a dubious assumption.

 

[Arkhandus]

I've had little computer access lately, but......

1) What do you mean by 'discount rate per level'? Is it supposed to be a positive or negative number? What exactly is it supposed to represent? I'm guessing at a glance that you mean it to be the amount by which any given racial benefit diminishes in value (depreciates, to use accounting terms) for each level gained? I.E. +2 to an ability score is less significant when you're 15th-level and already have a bundle of +4 or +6 ability-boosting magic items, so +2 Strength or whatnot is less valuable for a high-ECL race than for a low-ECL race, basically. I'm still not sure if you mean it to be a positive or negative number.

2) I don't like algebra. I really, really learned to hate it so far in college, and almost as much back in high school. Thus, while I could probably figure out the equation and what it's intended results would represent, I really don't want to bother. Several pointless semesters worth of algebra wasting my time for an unrelated major have made me loathe equations. Just thought I'd point that out.

3) The CR system is very, very abstract and unusual. Upper_Krust, I'm told, does a better job of calculating appropriate Challenge Ratings than Wizards of the Coast does, and I'm inclined to agree given some of what I've seen in WotC products, what I've witnessed in play, what I've calculated myself, and what I've read about some presumptions WotC staff uses in calculating CRs. Don't use the CR system as any kind of reference when dealing with Level Adjustments.

4) To clarify an earlier point: I would consider a +0 LA race to have up to 4 feats worth of racial traits, after racial drawbacks are considered, under the standard rules. Though in my homebrew settings I tend to up the amount to 5, 6, or 7 feats worth of racial traits, which is similar to what the 3E dwarf receives under the core rules. I would consider a +1 LA race to have up to 12 feats worth of racial traits in total; the 4 from LA+0, and a further 8 from the LA+1. Thus an LA+2 race would likely have up to 20 feats worth of racial traits in total, and so on and so forth.

The upper end of my scale, the 9-12 part, is actually just what I use in certain homebrews, and only for certain circumstances (like if the race's traits are pretty disparate and don't complement each other, making them slightly good at various things but without any real focus). However, the higher that a race's Level Adjustment is, the more likely it is that they deserve a bit of extra power from that LA; so for instance, an LA+4 race might deserve a total of 38 or 39 feats worth of racial traits, rather than just 35 or 36. The higher the LA, the more significantly the loss of Hit Dice/Hit Points, caster levels, feats, or whatnot, will be felt.

Also, note that these are my 'maximums'; I'm fine with an LA+0 race having just 2 feats worth of racial traits, or an LA+1 race having just 8 feats worth of racial traits. Going lower than that might make the race very obviously not worthwhile, suffering too much of a disadvantage compared to their comrades belonging to core races. The WotC level adjustments are mostly intended to make monstrous races mildly or moderately disadvantaged in exchange for being more 'interesting', but that really just punishes people who have played a long time and want something different, or newbies who want to try something wierd and cool to start with. Punishing roleplay and 'fun' choices is bad in my book, because D&D is a game.

 

[Roman]

Sorry, I am extremely busy today - I will respond tomorrow or the day after. Thank you for your patience.

 

[Roman]

I've had little computer access lately, but......

1) What do you mean by 'discount rate per level'? Is it supposed to be a positive or negative number? What exactly is it supposed to represent? I'm guessing at a glance that you mean it to be the amount by which any given racial benefit diminishes in value (depreciates, to use accounting terms) for each level gained? I.E. +2 to an ability score is less significant when you're 15th-level and already have a bundle of +4 or +6 ability-boosting magic items, so +2 Strength or whatnot is less valuable for a high-ECL race than for a low-ECL race, basically. I'm still not sure if you mean it to be a positive or negative number.

2) I don't like algebra. I really, really learned to hate it so far in college, and almost as much back in high school. Thus, while I could probably figure out the equation and what it's intended results would represent, I really don't want to bother. Several pointless semesters worth of algebra wasting my time for an unrelated major have made me loathe equations. Just thought I'd point that out.

3) The CR system is very, very abstract and unusual. Upper_Krust, I'm told, does a better job of calculating appropriate Challenge Ratings than Wizards of the Coast does, and I'm inclined to agree given some of what I've seen in WotC products, what I've witnessed in play, what I've calculated myself, and what I've read about some presumptions WotC staff uses in calculating CRs. Don't use the CR system as any kind of reference when dealing with Level Adjustments.

Yes, you are correct that the formula is supposed to represent depreciation, as used in economics, but instead of depreciating over unit time, abilities/skills/character features, depreciate in value with levels.

BTW: I am sorry I imposed the math on you.

4) To clarify an earlier point: I would consider a +0 LA race to have up to 4 feats worth of racial traits, after racial drawbacks are considered, under the standard rules. Though in my homebrew settings I tend to up the amount to 5, 6, or 7 feats worth of racial traits, which is similar to what the 3E dwarf receives under the core rules. I would consider a +1 LA race to have up to 12 feats worth of racial traits in total; the 4 from LA+0, and a further 8 from the LA+1. Thus an LA+2 race would likely have up to 20 feats worth of racial traits in total, and so on and so forth.

The upper end of my scale, the 9-12 part, is actually just what I use in certain homebrews, and only for certain circumstances (like if the race's traits are pretty disparate and don't complement each other, making them slightly good at various things but without any real focus). However, the higher that a race's Level Adjustment is, the more likely it is that they deserve a bit of extra power from that LA; so for instance, an LA+4 race might deserve a total of 38 or 39 feats worth of racial traits, rather than just 35 or 36. The higher the LA, the more significantly the loss of Hit Dice/Hit Points, caster levels, feats, or whatnot, will be felt.

Yes this is what I meant - thanks! However, I don't think the value of the LA goes up linearly (8 feats equivalent per level under your system). I think the increases are exponential (perhaps 8 feats equivalent at 1st level; but the second level might add 11 feats instead of 8 and the third level might add another 16 feats... etc.).

Also, note that these are my 'maximums'; I'm fine with an LA+0 race having just 2 feats worth of racial traits, or an LA+1 race having just 8 feats worth of racial traits. Going lower than that might make the race very obviously not worthwhile, suffering too much of a disadvantage compared to their comrades belonging to core races. The WotC level adjustments are mostly intended to make monstrous races mildly or moderately disadvantaged in exchange for being more 'interesting', but that really just punishes people who have played a long time and want something different, or newbies who want to try something wierd and cool to start with. Punishing roleplay and 'fun' choices is bad in my book, because D&D is a game.

I agree that designers should punish choices to play monstrous races. If I as a DM don't want my players to play monstrous races I will tell them they cannot do so, or if I merely want to discourage them I will give them penalties myself. What I expect from a WotC product is a balanced system that leaves me and my players to make choices ourselves. Unfortunately, Savage Species, although a great concept for a book, failed in that regard.


On a related note, I just did a calculation based on real world discounting forced into discounting per level, based on a number of inevitably unreliable assumptions about gamers, style of games and frequency of gaming. What is remarkable, however, is that I got a number very similar to the one based on CRs. Every level, the cost of an ability should decline to 73% of its cost at the previous level. This means that after two levels, the cost would decline to 53% of the original. The answer was calculated independently and is remarkably similar to a halving in cost (or doubling in power) every two levels is implied by the CR system (BTW: It was my impression that UK's CR system makes the same assumptions as the official CR system in this regard - is this impression incorrect?).