Cambion racial stat modifiers - WTF?

[JoeGKushner]

Because it was written to challenge PCs in a fight, not BE a PC. Its stats were chosen and abilties were set ONLY to be a foe. You don't handicap a monster in plans of making it a PC.

Now once that monster is made, THEN you set the LA based on how it's abilties compare to the PC races, erring on the side of caution.

Only problem with that is it's not consistent. How about the Warlock who can fly or the guy from Tome of Blades who can keep using his flame stike attack over and over again.

I think it went something like this:

Initial Idea: Player's abilities are limited. We'll have to screw the pooch on this but penalize races with innate abilities.

Secondary Idea: Players like having abilities that are useful frequently. Let's make classes that cater to that.

"Uh, hey guys, what about the thing with the monsters being penalized and all that?"

An effect is an effect is an effect. Once WoTC allowed a class that can fly at will and other classes whose special abilities can be refreshed almost at will, they lost the whole arguement with monsters having all the time powers.

Once again, a true point system shines in this case as if you buy 8d6 eb, you can call it the mighty chicken beak attack but it's not going to cost any more than the guy who buys the same 8d6 eb and calls it the burning hellfire of legoras.

 

[BryonD]

There is. More skills. More feats. More HD. Better BAB.

Obviously you are not quite keeping up with the conversation because all of the above is already covered.

If the answerr is to always choose human, why include ogre? Or dwarf? Why do you set out to make the ogre fighter noticably inferior? Why cant they be roughly equal?

Are you intentionally misrepresenting what I said? Or did you really miss it that badly?

Sure, you dont want ogres better. Or humans. But why do we have to make an ettercap a laughable choice as a character?

"laughable?" Are you even reading here?

"Non-core sucks" isnt going to really get that many interested in buying new books now is it? If it doesnt add anything worthwhile, why am I reading it?

At this point I'm not certain you're reading anything at all.

 

[Reynard]

Once again, a true point system shines in this case as if you buy 8d6 eb, you can call it the mighty chicken beak attack but it's not going to cost any more than the guy who buys the same 8d6 eb and calls it the burning hellfire of legoras.

I think you're lost. It's this way.

 

[JPL]

I had a player in early 2nd Edition play a cambion fighter who aspired to paladinhood, and eventually achieved it, using a wish.

Good times, being fifteen and nerdy....

 

[Trickstergod]

If a book tells me monster X is roughly equivalent in power to PC of Y level, I expect them to be roughly equal.

When they're not, that's a bug, not a feature. Any DM who can't put his foot down and say "No" to the "menagerie" of monster PC's is, simply put, a bad DM. You shouldn't need the rules to enforce your judgment. Just say no.

Meanwhile, rules where, say, the 10th level human and supposedly ECL 10 monster are not roughly equal are bad rules. When the rules say, after adjustments, that a monster PC and humanoid PC are roughly equal - and they're not - they're badly written rules.

D&D is supposed to be built on balance. So it should be built on balance - favoring humanoids in the rules over monsters is favoring a certain playstyle. Not favoring either is not.

On topic:

The odd numbered racial adjustments, while not the worst thing evahr, are just a style change that seems...odd...after this long.

Favored class assassin, though? That's just such a basic thing getting screwed up that I really have to question the quality of Wizards writing and development team.

 

[Pants]

Could be, but what of WotC's vaunted development staff? Surely they should know the rules to their own game, yes? I thought it was their job to catch stuff like this. Do we know who developed this book?

I've always found some of WGB's 'mechanical' implementations pretty quirky at best and downright strange at other times. I just chalked it up as a Baur-ism personally, but who knows what went on behind the scenes.

 

[frankthedm]

If a book tells me monster X is roughly equivalent in power to PC of Y level, I expect them to be roughly equal.

They are roughly equal in combat against the core 4-PC party. The NPC accomplishes this by burning through 1000's of GP in dedicated NPC gear value of potions, poisons and such while the monster just uses it's innate abilities and possibly a piece of treasure if it was lucky enough to have something it could use and figure out.. In that way they are relatively the same Challenge Rating.

In the hands of a PC a higher standard is used because the PC will see far more combats in a day and in their career. That monster ability on an NPC, is not much different than a few scrolls an NPC might get to use. On A PC it is like an unlimited charge staff, never running out and scaling as the PC puts on scads of magical gear. Thus LA will be higher than CR most of the time.

An ettercap, ungenerously LA’ed I’ll admit, has an unlimited supply of poison as the rules are set up. That has to be accounted for. Nothing even prevents it from supplying it’s whole party with a toxin that would be worth at least a few hundred GP a dose. If a DM wants ettercaps played, then maybe making the poison 3 +con mod doses per day that dehydrate a minute after leaving it’s body and dropping the ECL a point or two would be a good idea.

A lizard man that can't wear metal armor without getting a scale softening alergic reactions could drop a lizard man's LA a bit, but that might not work due to Bracers of Armor.

One thing, the 3e Mantra was "options, not restrictions". thus wotc could not restrict monsters in any way to lower LA when they were assigning LA.

 

[blargney the second]

That thing is so weird, I wonder if it's an April Fool's prank a few days late. *scratches head*
-blarg

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

If a book tells me monster X is roughly equivalent in power to PC of Y level, I expect them to be roughly equal.

When they're not, that's a bug, not a feature. Any DM who can't put his foot down and say "No" to the "menagerie" of monster PC's is, simply put, a bad DM. You shouldn't need the rules to enforce your judgment. Just say no.

Meanwhile, rules where, say, the 10th level human and supposedly ECL 10 monster are not roughly equal are bad rules. When the rules say, after adjustments, that a monster PC and humanoid PC are roughly equal - and they're not - they're badly written rules.

D&D is supposed to be built on balance. So it should be built on balance - favoring humanoids in the rules over monsters is favoring a certain playstyle. Not favoring either is not.

QFT.

In what bizzaro universe is it "easier" for a GM to mess around with some of the most important and difficult to adjudicate aspects of the game mechanics than it is for him to say no to a race he doesn't want?

Wizards made a deliberate decision to inflate Level Adjustments to encourage a certain playstyle - ironically, the playstyle LEAST likely to appeal to the type of player who would buy the book that introduced the Level Adjustment system. It's like if HERO Games decided to overcost, say, Killing Attack relative to Energy Blast because they felt the former was out of genre for Champions. Actually, it's as if HERO Games had done that IN DARK CHAMPIONS.

As awful of a design choice as over-LAing was initially, it's been exacerbated by later releases in which NOT ALL THE DESIGNERS AGREED. For example, I've heard from several members of the Paizo staff that, at least as of a year/year and a half ago, were not aware of or disagreed with this decision. Considering the inconsistency of Level Adjustments within Wizards' own products, several other designers also seem to disagree or be unaware of this directive.

Thus, you can't even tell the GM who doesn't want the same playstyle as Sean K. Reynolds to simply knock an LA off creatures and call it a day - that might work for Mr. Reynolds's own LA'd monsters, but not for another designer's. It's nuts.

Anyway, if you think the game should encourage humans as the default, you'd better slap a level adjustment on dwarves (the only core race that's significantly better than humans - all the others except halfling being much weaker).

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

In what bizzaro universe is it "easier" for a GM to mess around with some of the most important and difficult to adjudicate aspects of the game mechanics than it is for him to say no to a race he doesn't want?

Wizards made a deliberate decision to inflate Level Adjustments to encourage a certain playstyle - ironically, the playstyle LEAST likely to appeal to the type of player who would buy the book that introduced the Level Adjustment system. It's like if HERO Games decided to overcost, say, Killing Attack relative to Energy Blast because they felt the former was out of genre for Champions. Actually, it's as if HERO Games had done that IN DARK CHAMPIONS.

As awful of a design choice as over-LAing was initially, it's been exacerbated by later releases in which NOT ALL THE DESIGNERS AGREED. For example, I've heard from several members of the Paizo staff that, at least as of a year/year and a half ago, were not aware of or disagreed with this decision. Considering the inconsistency of Level Adjustments within Wizards' own products, several other designers also seem to disagree or be unaware of this directive.

Thus, you can't even tell the GM who doesn't want the same playstyle as Sean K. Reynolds to simply knock an LA off creatures and call it a day - that might work for Mr. Reynolds's own LA'd monsters, but not for another designer's. It's nuts.

Anyway, if you think the game should encourage humans as the default, you'd better slap a level adjustment on dwarves (the only core race that's significantly better than humans - all the others except halfling being much weaker).

A lot of QFTs going around here, so I'll just add mine. Both MoogleEmpMog and Trickstergod have just expressed the problem and my viewpoint extremely well. The core rules should balance so that I as a DM can modify my own games to create the feel I want without being required to completely redesign the game and that includes monsters as PCs. A balancing tool is a balancing tool and if the rules are off kilter in either direction they screwed up.