Balance of ECL values

[Li Shenron]

I don't own the Savage Species book, so I am not aware of the (possibly) finally corrected values of ECL for playable monsters, but anyway I am wondering if you who have played or DMed many ECL PCs think that on the average the ECL values are appropriate or not.

I wanted to play a Drow as my next PC, but the ECL of +2 convinced be it wasn't a good idea, especially because I wanted to play a Wizard. SR makes it better than PHB races, but with almost a negative level (the light sensitivity) half of the time, I don't think it's worth giving up 2 full levels.

I have read in this messageboards about some ECLs from Savage Species that looks very very high, and it made me feel like the authors were scared to death about allowing a race which would be more powerful than the standard ones, and therefore opted, when unsure, to raise the ECL.

Please tell me you have experienced a very fine balance with SS's ECL values, otherwise I'll lose my last will to buy that book

 

[kreynolds]

Li Shenron,

I definately recommend that you take a look at Upper_Krust's system. Its actually a heck-of-a-lot more balanced and accurate in regards to ELs, ECLs, and CRs. Some of the ECLs in SS are spot-on in Krust's system, but some are not. The most noteworthy example I can think of in regards to nurfed ECL is the Kir-Lanan (not from SS, but you can use SS to figure it up). I have never pegged it higher than +6, not in any way, shape, or form. Soldarin's pegs it at about 5.something (which I rounded up to 6). SS would have you believe it is about an 8 (7.something rounded up, IIRC).

The biggest drawback to SS is their approach: Assign rediculously high level adjustments to start, then playtest your poor little head off (you'll just about always end up lowering the LA or ECL by a few or several points after playtesting). Using Soldarin's eliminates a little bit of the extraneous playtesting (you'll end up lowering the ECL by one or a few points), and using UK's method eliminates a lot of it, down to bare essential playtesting (you'll end up lowering or increasing the ECL by one, maybe two points).

Here's a link to UK's system, which you can get here.

 

[Skinwalker]

IMHO, the ECLs in SS do tend to make spellcasters far less viable for humanoids. You end up losing a lot of effective spell levels for abilities that don't really seem to compensate.

 

[kreynolds]

Part of the reason that I don't favor SS is its sloppiness. Note that none of the values listed in the book for special qualities, special abilities, spell-like abilities, etc, use decimals. They are all neatly rounded numbers. This doesn't represent accuracy, rather it leads to overly high values. Point in case is energy resistance. Its just funky how it is listed at a flat value that increases based on the number of additional resistances, and the very example they give ends up with a level adjustment that is higher than the resistances are worth (by 0.5, I believe).

Basically, it boils down to this; IMO, In regards to time required determining level adjustments or ECLs, based on playtest time and level adjustments for special qualities/abilities/etc, SS requires 25% math and 75% playtesting, Soldarin's requires 50% math and 50% playtesting, and UK's system requires 80% math and 20% playtesting. Personally, I find doing the math far less time consuming, even when it represents the bulk of the LA system, such as with UK's.

I would much rather do the math than use big fat clunky values to "guesstimate". If you doubt the vast amount of guesstimation using Savage Species, just take a look at the Acid Tests in there. While some of them represent the accuracy of the system, they don't do it fairly, as they tend to pick the easiest creatures as examples.

 

[Ziggy]

In my view the ECL values of SS are:

• Too high for any spellcaster, as more than ECL 1 is almost impossible to balance with special abilities (see also the Mystic Theurge discussion)
• Pretty correct at low levels for other classes
• Too low at high levels for most classes when your higher CON compensates for HP loss, and your other stats boosters take you into territory usually not reachable by standard classes
• The monster classes are usually very generous at lower levels (e.g. look at the celestials below level 10), balanced at 10-15, might be somewhat underpowered at really high levels when magic can duplicate most of those special powers.
• The half-ogre is a joke at ECL 1. I rate it a strong 2 or maybe a weak 3.

The main problem with ECL values are the differences in growth rate between the different types of classes. While the loss of one or two levels is possible to compensate with high STR and CON for a fighter, it is almost impossible to compensate the loss of spell levels for a spellcaster. Coupled with the non-linear growt of D&D, ECL can at best be balanced at certain points in the growth scale.

.Ziggy

 

[Pax]

I gave it a "2".

I find that, for nonspellcaster types -- especially pure Fighters -- ECLs seem too low; it's almost ALWAYS worth losing a handful of levels -- up to 1/4 of your total character level, say -- for the boosts to attributes, reach, or whatever.

For spellcaster types, though ... losing more than 1/10 of your level can be (and IMO often is) a self-neutering process, no matter WHAT the attribute gains are. For a spellcaster, those Caster Levels are the holy grail, racial abilities be damned.

In general, while SavS isn't a perfect book, it's at least OFFICIAL, and GMs who're leery of allowing a houserule ECL calculation (UK's or Soldarin's), may allow the SavS ECLs.

As well, there are a few useful bits of rules in there, especially in the feats, equipment, and spells section. And some nice templates. 8)