ECL of Monsters Part III: Are Ogres ECL 8? The Adventures of Ghorgor.

[Hypersmurf]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ECL of Monsters Part III: Are Ogres ECL 8? The Adventures of Ghorgor.

ECL is clearly balanced with the best possible match up in mind. Ogre can only be viable fighter and barbarian. I guess you could lower his ECL if the player wanted to select another class than the best fit.

Do you give an Ogre a favoured class? There isn't one listed in the Monster Manual.

But if you did - say, Barbarian, for example - and you told the player that he could have his Ogre Sorcerer at ECL +5 instead of +8... what happens if he then multiclasses after one Sorcerer level and starts ramping up in Barbarian? He's basically cheated the DM out of two levels... and has a couple of first level spells and a familiar to boot.

I don't think variable ECLs works...

-Hyp.

 

[Axiomatic Unicorn]

Ok, the small problem I have with it is that among the people I know, people WON'T take the class you normally associate with the race, and these ECL were determined with only the most efficient class in mind.
And sorry, playing a killing machine is not my idea of fun, I expect characters to be usefull outside of combat. IMC, social interaction, investigation and streetsmarts are essentials, for every character: they will be separated and each will try to bring something to the investigation. An ogre PC will be expected to do something out of combat, so he'll have to put a good score in INT to compensate.

IMC one of the cohort is a ranger 3 ogre (with ECL+4) and he was never more powerful than the fighters in the groups. He did his job well of protecting his wood elf rogue master (L9), and completed him nicely but the rogue was much more dangerous.
The ECL +4 already didn't seemed right as he wasn't maxed out.

That's an important point: people who want's to play these monsters are not min/maxer (who are NEVER going to take a race with ECL), so these characters needs a break.
Because sorcerer or druid ogre, fighter succubus, mage troll, paladin pixies... are what my players would be more interested, and with these ECL they are not going to survive.

OK, one of my player in another campaign needs a new L9 character I'll give him a tooled-up killer ogre at ECL+4 and let's see how he does (Ps: the clerics and fighters in the groups are maxed out for combat).
Results in 3 days (scenario with 50% investigation/50% combat from hell)

The authors of the Dragon Article are looking for feedback before these ECLs are published in a more official form.
I suggest you e-mail them.

But instead of saying that the ECL for an ogre needs to be lower to help out ogre wizards, try this instead:
Tell them that they need to add a discussion of what the standard ECLs really mean. Add an explanation that the ECLs are set for the ideal case (as they should be) and that DMs should seriously consider each application on a case by case basis. If they make it official that the ogre ECL is +8 and also make it official that DM/player should be able to consider that a benchmark for establishing the ECL for less optimal cases, both sides should be happy. I can point to an official rule and tell my ogre barbarian player has an official ECL of +8 and you can tell your DM that your ogre mage has an official ECL of less than +8.

The problem is that the core game is not really designed to handle this stuff. Compare the half-orc for example. If you want to play a half-orc wizard, you are clearly not taking the max/min approach. You will be a bit weaker than a human wizard or a half-orc barbarian. But not so much that you will feel shafted, you are simply taking a slight hit in the power department to get the roleplaying experience you want. But the ogre case is not so easy. The difference between the power of an ogre fighter and an ogre wizard is going to be more significant. So no single ECL will fit both. They could publish a table with races on the side and classes across the top, then give every pair an ECL. But that would be a silly amount of effort to go to, and would just cause 100 times more howls of disagreement.

Better to just set a fair high-end benchmark and then make it clear that lower numbers may be better on a case by case basis. There is no way they will ever publish a book that will be able to tell me how to handle ever situation that may arise if I put an ogre PC in my game. So the target audience for this book will be players who are willing to take responsibility themselves for making it work. The authors of Tooth and Claw would do well to acknowlege that point, I think.

 

[Mal Malenkirk]

And sorry, playing a killing machine is not my idea of fun, I expect characters to be usefull outside of combat. IMC, social interaction, investigation and streetsmarts are essentials, for every character: they will be separated and each will try to bring something to the investigation.

Then you shouldn't play an ogre OR a fighter and you certainly shouldn't play an OGRE FIGHTER!

I am very tired of this argument, why won't it die?

Ghorgor isn't weak out of combat because of his high ECL but because of his race and class.

Play a Dryad or a Pixie if you want lots of skills and useful spell like abilities in exchange for your ECL. A Dryad can easily gain as much skill points as a standard 3rd level rogue in exchange for her ECL. And she casts charm person as a spell like abilities.

Killing machines aren't your idea of fun? Then don't play one. I don't think we should balance ECL based on your idea of fun!

As I mentionned earlier in this thread, Mal Malenkirk, my namesake, is a killing machine. And he's the most fun PC I've ever played because of his ineptitude out of combat that provoked endless opportunities for comedy and mayhem.

For me, Ghorgor is fun to play for the same reasons. You don't like it, I can respect that. But don't imagine that your taste (or mine) in roleplaying has any importance as far as game balance issues are concerned. The question that needs an answer is:"Is it too strong/weak". It's not: "Would I like to play this character."

One of my players has already expressed his interest to play Ghorgor should his PC die so that tells me that an Ogre at ECL 8 is still an attractive concept for some. It's not a popularity contest; not everyone has to like it.

An ogre PC will be expected to do something out of combat, so he'll have to put a good score in INT to compensate

What are you talking about? Nothing very useful is expected out of the human fighter out of combat, why would you expect the ogre to do better?

It's an ogre fighter, for crying out loud!

Originally posted by abri
OK, one of my player in another campaign needs a new L9 character I'll give him a tooled-up killer ogre at ECL+4 and let's see how he does (Ps: the clerics and fighters in the groups are maxed out for combat).
Results in 3 days (scenario with 50% investigation/50% combat from hell)

Don't wait till then. Assuming indentical stats and equivalent ressources;

I can tell you right now what happens when a 5th level ogre fighter with ECL 4 is compared to a 9th level fighter ECL 0.

-They both have 9 HD but the ogre has +4 to CON

The ogre has more HP.

-The Ogre has +8 BAB and -1 size while the ECL 0 race has +9, but the Ogre has +10 STR.

The ogre will have a better attack bonus. He'll also use bigger weapons and do much more damage in melee.

-The ogre has -2 dex and -1 size which hurts his AC by 2 points when compared to ECL 0... But he has a +5 natural armor!

The ogre will have a better AC.

-The ogre moves at 30 when wearing medium or heavier armor.
The ogre will move faster

Oh, and he has a longer reach and a +4 size modifier for several special maneuver.

Results: The ogre dominates.

 

[Marshall]

Don't wait till then. Assuming indentical stats and equivalent ressources;

I can tell you right now what happens when a 5th level ogre fighter with ECL 4 is compared to a 9th level fighter ECL 0.

-They both have 9 HD but the ogre has +4 to CON

The ogre has more HP.

roughly 12hp, brought down to maybe 2 if you use the previous 5 ECL

-The Ogre has +8 BAB and -1 size while the ECL 0 race has +9, but the Ogre has +10 STR.

The ogre will have a better attack bonus. He'll also use bigger weapons and do much more damage in melee.

Advantage Ogre

-The ogre has -2 dex and -1 size which hurts his AC by 2 points when compared to ECL 0... But he has a +5 natural armor!

The ogre will have a better AC.

Could be advantage, probably offset by the lack of availability of Ogre/Giant size equipment, But thats an RP concern.

-The ogre moves at 30 when wearing medium or heavier armor.
The ogre will move faster

Ogre has a base speed of 30 and medium and heavy armor will affect him just as harshly as the fighter. Does make me wonder if the speed entries in the MM are correct for monsters wearing armor...

Oh, and he has a longer reach and a +4 size modifier for several special maneuver.

Fighter 9 has 3-4 more feats, including access to reach weapons that negate the Ogres advantage, while being remarkably ineffective for the Ogre

Results: The ogre dominates.

True result : Its closer than you think and if you go with the original +5 ECL its almost dead even.

 

[Ristamar]

But instead of saying that the ECL for an ogre needs to be lower to help out ogre wizards, try this instead:
Tell them that they need to add a discussion of what the standard ECLs really mean. Add an explanation that the ECLs are set for the ideal case (as they should be) and that DMs should seriously consider each application on a case by case basis. If they make it official that the ogre ECL is +8 and also make it official that DM/player should be able to consider that a benchmark for establishing the ECL for less optimal cases, both sides should be happy. I can point to an official rule and tell my ogre barbarian player has an official ECL of +8 and you can tell your DM that your ogre mage has an official ECL of less than +8.

The problem is that the core game is not really designed to handle this stuff. Compare the half-orc for example. If you want to play a half-orc wizard, you are clearly not taking the max/min approach. You will be a bit weaker than a human wizard or a half-orc barbarian. But not so much that you will feel shafted, you are simply taking a slight hit in the power department to get the roleplaying experience you want. But the ogre case is not so easy. The difference between the power of an ogre fighter and an ogre wizard is going to be more significant. So no single ECL will fit both. They could publish a table with races on the side and classes across the top, then give every pair an ECL. But that would be a silly amount of effort to go to, and would just cause 100 times more howls of disagreement.

Better to just set a fair high-end benchmark and then make it clear that lower numbers may be better on a case by case basis. There is no way they will ever publish a book that will be able to tell me how to handle ever situation that may arise if I put an ogre PC in my game. So the target audience for this book will be players who are willing to take responsibility themselves for making it work. The authors of Tooth and Claw would do well to acknowlege that point, I think.

On top of all the things you already mentioned, you also have to throw multiclassing into the mix. Sure, a strange, rare ogre may start off as a sorceror, and the player may cry for a lower ECL. But what if he starts taking a lot of fighter levels down the road?

A floating ECL is far too complex and subjective to even try to develop a standard method of implementation, in my opinion. I'm glad they're basing it on the most optimal class choice, and I think it's fairly evident from the clamor on these boards that 99% of all players are going to realize that taking other less suited classes would be the equivalent of shooting themselves in the foot. At that point, you either suck up the consequences, or carefully compromise with your DM on a case by case basis.

 

[Axiomatic Unicorn]

That is a good point.

For me, as a DM, I would be certain to establish the character concept at the beginning.

 

[Xeovke]

True result : Its closer than you think and if you go with the original +5 ECL its almost dead even.

Dead even?!?
1)He has a +8BAB+5Str-1size=+12 to hit versus a +9BAB, so that's a +3 to hit difference which is kind of not negligeable.
2)Even if the fighter uses reach weapons, so the fighter's weapon is MUCH easier to sunder (he has less HP).
3)The ogre has a +7 bonus (relative to the fighter) to disarm an opponent.
4)The ogre has a +7 bonus (relative to the fighter using a reach wpn hence large and 2HW) aigainst being disarmed by his opponent.
5)The ogre's damage is *MUCH* greater 2d8+(1.5 ("base" Str bonus+5)) aigainst the fighter's 2d4 or 1d10+(1.5 "base" Str bonus)+2 (maybe wpn Spec).
approx 16 or 17+1.5Str vs 7+1.5Str, which is a big difference
6)Since trip attacks are purely Str+size modifier checks he will have a +9 over the fighter, which is very good.
7)He has more HP, maybe "only" +12 at this level, but this difference will only increase since he has a better Con.
8)The Ogre can use an (Huge) halberd, to increase his reach too

If this is almost dead even, then I suppose the Tarrasque should not be too wrong at ECL+20

Xeovke

 

[bret]

Sure, a strange, rare ogre may start off as a sorceror, and the player may cry for a lower ECL. But what if he starts taking a lot of fighter levels down the road?

Are Ogre Magi really a different race than Ogres?

I thought that an Ogre taking Sorcerer levels is basically an Ogre Magi.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Are Ogre Magi really a different race than Ogres?

Yes. They're very powerful and use spell-like abilities. They're also blue-skinned.

 

[Xeovke]

Are Ogre Magi really a different race than Ogres?
I thought that an Ogre taking Sorcerer levels is basically an Ogre Magi.

It is in the same entry as Ogre, but has a distinct sub-entry.
Xeovke