Cambion racial stat modifiers - WTF?

[MoogleEmpMog]

Now, to be fair to Sean K. Reynolds, who once explained this on an ENWorld thread, what he WANTED to do was simply err on the side of caution when he wasn't sure how to LA a creature. Not to just generally overinflate LAs.

I think he erred way, way too far in the actual implementation and set the wrong standard, but his intention wasn't as bad as 'let's make monsters nigh-unplayable.'

 

[MerricB]

Monsters almost need a set of LAs...

"Warrior LA", "Cleric LA", "Wizard LA", "Rogue LA"...

The Cambion's stat adjustments are making my head hurt. Something is dreadfully wrong in the writeup, and it reflects very badly on Wizards.

Cheers!

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

Now, to be fair to Sean K. Reynolds, who once explained this on an ENWorld thread, what he WANTED to do was simply err on the side of caution when he wasn't sure how to LA a creature. Not to just generally overinflate LAs.

Agreed, I don't think he intentionally meant to make monstrous PCs unplayable. Just be a little conservative in favor of the core races which are assumed to be the default common races of D&D. Unfortunately he skewed it a bit too far and once he started it became a policy to overinflate LAs with many of the writers.

Monsters almost need a set of LAs..."Warrior LA", "Cleric LA", "Wizard LA", "Rogue LA"...

I'm beginning to feel like his publicist but I really like UpperKrust's CR system. It allows me to break down creatures and classes to the individual abilities and build a systematic CR to balance them out. This is the sort of thing that the designers should have created to avoid these sort of problems and ensure balance.

I may be way out of the norm for running a homebrew that's basically the land of monstrous PC races but having a balancing mechanism that actually balances isn't much to ask.

 

[JoeGKushner]

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

Don't get me wrong. I love Hero. I find it's got a bit more of a "it is what it is" thing going on as opposed to d20 which has come an amazingly long way from stats that provided different bonuses and variant xp tables to using negative armor classes and racial level limits. Doesn't mean I don't think that there's a LOT of room to grow.

 

[Trickstergod]

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.

Actually, no. A monster just using its innate abilities like, say, an ettercap, has only a Challenge Rating of 3. Meanwhile, a 9th level character with gear is supposedly a Challenge Rating of 9 (I'd argue an 8 or 7, but whatever).

A 5 HD, +4 LA ettercap comes in at an ECL of 9. That number presumes it will have the gold for a 9th level character.

And even without either the ettercap or PC having but the barest amount of gear - let's say, a greatsword for a fighting type or a spell component pouch/holy symbol for a spellcaster - I think it's fairly clear the two aren't remotely balanced. Against each other, the 9th level PC will almost certainly decimate the ettercap. Against a party of 4-PC's, the 9th level PC is the greater all-around threat. Hold person will give an unequipped 9th level fighter a bad day, but presuming a party of four 3rd level PC's to match up with the CR 3 ettercap, they won't have many, if any, such spells memorized. About 25-50 gold of equipment and a 9th level PC will roast a party of four 3rd level PC's. Whereas the ettercap is a fair challenge.

There is nothing "relatively the same."

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.

Nothing? Let's start with the fact that the rules say zip about an ettercap just spitting poison all over an allies weapons, nothing about it lasting past a round, or anything. All of that is completely under the adjudication of the DM. And the default assumption by the rules is that the ettercap can't just share its poison - in the same fashion that poison isn't listed as a possible treasure from the ettercap, in the same fashion a rogue can't just "share" his Evasion and so on and so forth. Some things make more sense to share (poison over evasion), but the rules don't assume such sharing.

Yeah, an ettercap might reasonably be able to share some poison. But that's completely at the DM's discretion. And any player that tries using the "If the rules don't specifically disallow it, it must be allowed" deserves a good smack in the mouth.

Might as well say you're casting fireball so, when all the air rushes in to the place where fire just consumed it, it knocks the monster over the edge of the cliff it was standing on or similar such silliness. No - the rules don't say you can do that, so the presumed state is you can't. And anything beyond that - such as being able to share poison - is completely and fully at the DM's discretion. Accounting for possible "extras" isn't in Level Adjustments purview.

 

[Mercule]

Because, IMO, there should be a motive to play the human.

I tend to agree with the greater sentiment. However, that's just you and me and our particular play style. What about someone who wants to run a Talislanta-style game, or an aquatic game, or some other divergent theme?

Is the LA supposed to be a balance value? Or is it a "play core" stick? It really shouldn't be both because it's a murky concept, to begin with, and trying to get it to fill multiple functions only serves to aggrevate that issue.

Additionally, game system shouldn't tell you how to play, but serve to facilitate play with a structured framework of rules. Sure, some systems work better than others for certain things. It's just plain stupid, though, to intentionally impair your system for no good reason.

Besides, if a GM wants to run a humanocentric campaign, he can do what I did: Say, "I want to run a humanocentric campaign. All PCs must be from races on this short list. No more than one PC may be of any given non-human race. No more than two PCs may be other than human." Oddly enough, I got three humans, an elf, and a gnome.

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

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.

Trickstergod summed up my feelings on the whole thing very nicely. I couldn't have put it better if I'd tried, so I won't.

FWIW, for every point of LA a creature has, I give a d8 of HD. I think it goes a long way to making monster choices more attractive, if my players want something out of the ordinary. Increases survivability but not necessarily power level, which is fine with me.

Edit: And BTW, those Cambion stats make absolutely no sense. I'm more inclined to look at the statblock, presume it uses the 10, 10, 10, 11, 11, 11 setup, and calculate bonuses that way. Even-number stat bonuses are a part of the 3E design philosophy. It just doesn't even make sense to reverse that concept so late in the game.

 

[wayne62682]

The problem with LA is twofold: 1) The design INTENT was to make monster's pretty much unplayable as PCs (I can quote if necessary) due to the paranoia that monster's at-will abilities would make them too powerful; this idea has pretty much been retconned due to introducing things like the Warlock and ToB maneuvers, and 2) The monster gets screwed twice due to LA *and* usually Racial Hit Dice. Either one would be fair, both is ridiculous. There is no way that something with say, an LA +6 and 5 HD dice is the equivalent of ANY 11th level character, and yet that's what this creature is supposedly equal to. It's a ridiculous notion, plain and simple.

 

[maggot]

There is no way that something with say, an LA +6 and 5 HD dice is the equivalent of ANY 11th level character, and yet that's what this creature is supposedly equal to.

As LA is a static used at all levels, it must be calculated based on the worst case scenario. Usually this is not the first level at which the character can be played, usually it is at 20th level.

Also the LA calculations have to assume the chosen class and abilities will be the most optimal for the creature in question. So they have to be conservative.

Still, even at 20th, the difference between Fighter 20 and Fighter 9+5HD+6LA is probably too much. Especially with spells like blasphemy around.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

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.

If you dont want someone to play something, dont write rules for it to be played. Simple as that. Theres no rules for playing a grey ooze PC. However, if you are going to go through the effort to present a system (particularly a book devoted to a concept), that system should be BALANCED.

I dont understand why its so hard for you guys to get.