Cambion racial stat modifiers - WTF?

[Jefe Bergenstein]

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

No I am. You think that non-human PC's need a penalty applied, because humans are the default choice. I think they should be balanced. You think rules should be explitly unbalanced to create flavor. I think thats a DM and campaign decision. I'm keeping up, you arent. Who wants to buy a book and then fix its design flaws? No one is forcing you to put savage species in a campaign. If a DM goes out and grabs it with the intent to run a campaign with it, it should be usable and reasonably balanced off the shelf. Asking people to pay 30 bucks to then write the rules seems kind of stupid.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

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.

NPC's dont use ECL/LA. PC's do. ECL 15 for an umberhulk is a flat out joke. Its going to die in its first combat with its 8d8 HD, its saves are laughable, its BAB is a joke, etc. Who thought this was a good idea?

 

[sukael]

If you go by the stat-block, you get the following modifiers:

Normal Cambion
Str +8, Dex +6, Con +6, Int +2, Wis -4, Cha -6

Baron/Marquis Cambion
Str +10, Dex +8, Con +8, Int +6, Wis +6, Cha +4

The stat adjustments under the "Cambion as Characters" seems to have the problems. Me thinks that the stat block was corrected (excepted for the Favored Class thing, though the sidebar on "More Powerful Cambions" seems to indicate the rogue is its favored class, which is probably correct), but the "Cambion as Characters" was not since it also ommits all of the Cambions resistances, SR, immunities, spell-like abilities, and special racial/supernatural abilities. I don't think a +4 LA is too much for all that.

So it looks like the LA itself might be okay, but it's the entire "Cambion as Characters" section that's at fault...

 

[Ghendar]

The preview of Demonweb Pits has a Cambion with several +3 stat adjustments? Typo? Madness?

:\

I vote for madness.

Seriously though, it seems like a typo and WotC really needs better editing. Dragons of Faerun, for example, is a bloody editing mess.

 

[BryonD]

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?

The basis of the core should be transparent enough that any preferred adaptation is simple to achieve. And on that front I think it is. It could be more easy if the LAs were not so off and frequently so inconsistentl in how there are "calculated". But, if you know what LA you want a monster to be, make the change and you are there.

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.

It seems WotC agrees with you and went "play core". I think if you aim for slightly biased toward core races and erred that way you could get close enough to accomplishing both with reasonably minimal aggrevation.

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.

I agree 100%. But it isn't just my preference I'm talking about here. God knows that D&D is a much more successful game than it would be if everything was built around what I prefer. But I'm convinced that a core race bias serves the majority of D&D gamers best. Mostly because it gives the kind of game that they want, but to a lesser extent because it also serves the starter and KISS groups the best.

Again, I do think that the system could better faciliate play if the numbers were not so scewed. And fixing that would reduce impairment of adapability.

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.

I agree. And one could certainly push even further toward core only or even human only if they wanted. But again, I believe that the game's popularity is best served by a slight bias toward core. I think it would be better served that way than it would be with monster equity, and much better served than it is now with monster total shafting.

 

[delericho]

The preview of Demonweb Pits has a Cambion with several +3 stat adjustments? Typo? Madness?

That's got to be a mistake. They can't possibly put that into print.

Mistakes:

Odd-numbered stat adjustments. The reasons these are bad have been reiterated many times, often by (former) WotC designers. In addition, 'balancing' significant physical stat bonuses with a massive Cha penalty isn't going to work - once you go below 8 or so Cha there's little real difference in dropping down to 2.

There should be a note that the character has Outsider type, and as such is not affected by spells affecting Humanoids, cannot easily be Raised, gains automatic armour and weapon proficiencies, and so forth. Simply noting six hit dice of Outsider isn't really enough.

The skill points listed are wrong. It should be 9 x (8 + Int modifier).

The creatures immunities, resistances, telepathy, spell-like abilities, damage resistance, spell resistance and many other elements from the stat block are missing.

The favoured class should be changed. Might as well list it as "None" as "Assassin".

An LA of +4 might actually be warranted, given the extent of the Cambion's benefits. However, in my experience any creature with an LA of greater than +2 is effectively unplayable.

Fortunately, I have no intention of allowing Cambions as PCs in my game anyway, and think the main stat-block should be usable as-is*. That being the case, this massive error actually has no effect on whether or not I will buy the book in question. Still, it's an absolutely shocking piece of work.

* Then again, the description of the Cambion seems at odds with its capabilities. They are described as adopting the form of humans and elves and striking from surprise, a tactic that is badly nerfed by the polymorph errata. Likewise, the Cambion is described as disguising itself as a 'kindly old gentleman', or as infiltrating Good societies. With a Charisma of 4, they will be absolutely awful in that role.

 

[Trickstergod]

The basis of the core should be transparent enough that any preferred adaptation is simple to achieve. And on that front I think it is. It could be more easy if the LAs were not so off and frequently so inconsistentl in how there are "calculated". But, if you know what LA you want a monster to be, make the change and you are there.

Rules that say "This is roughly equal" when things aren't roughly equal...are bad rules. That's currently what Level Adjustment is.

And the best sort of rules need minimal house ruling.

But I'm convinced that a core race bias serves the majority of D&D gamers best. Mostly because it gives the kind of game that they want, but to a lesser extent because it also serves the starter and KISS groups the best.

No, it doesn't serve the majority of D&D gamers the best. It serves a small portion of DM's who can't say no best. The majority of D&D gamers won't be harmed in the slightest by a minotaur and human being on roughly equal footing at X level and beyond. The "core bias" mostly serves to hurt those who want to do something different. Which, inevitably, most everybody wants to.

And those who want to Keep It Simple, Stupid as well as new folk to the game aren't hurt by having equitable power, either. If anything, the bias - again - hurts. Because to the average new guy who wants to play, say, an ogre, they're going to be completely unaware of the power disparity until they actually play.

Whereas a group that wants to keep things simple by not allowing monster PCs doesn't have to worry one whit about a relatively balanced Level Adjustment for most beasties. It's a non-issue.

And any DM that refuses to say no and relies on the rules to back up their preferred flavor of game deserves to have Pun-Pun unleashed upon them.

Striving for equity of a sort is nearly always a good thing. It only hurts when a DM can't just say no. A player should look at their character from the perspective of setting and concept; players shouldn't bemoan that playing their character concept is going to screw them over.

 

[PallidPatience]

In short, LAs that are based on anything but the actual capabilities and survivability of the monster as a PC destroy the entire basis of the level system. If ECL 5 is not equal to ECL 5, it is meaningless.

And that stat block is whack, yo.

 

[wayne62682]

The "Cambion as characters" block is wrong, and wasn't edited right. I spoke with Penny Williams (via the WotC chat room) and she confirmed it.

<Penny_Williams> Hmmm, looks like I have to take some of the blame on that cambion problem. Looks like I just missed that character section entirely on the edit.

 

[Hussar]

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!

Whoa. They really screwed the canine if MerricB is weighing in like this.