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

[Mal Malenkirk]

Myth:

Xeovk made 8 arguments, clearly labelled as such and concluded with a quip. It was clearly an exaggeration and perhaps not the best way to conclude an argumentation.

Still this was the part of his post you decided to quote and treat exactly as if it was an argument, which it was not.

It was a colourful way to express the conclusion (The conclusion being that ogre are not ECL 5, not that the Tarrasque is ECL 20). “Therefore I don’t think Ogre are ECL 5” would have been a more formal way to conclude. But it still meant the same thing.

If you don’t agree, you should “attack” the arguments that lead to the conclusion you consider to be wrong.

If I argument in this fashion;

1-Argument A
2-Argument B

If you think that their administration handled this crisis properly, I guess I should offer them the services of my pet monkey. He’d raise their efficiency to new levels.

This just mean that I think that the administration did a very poor job during the latest crisis and arguments A&B explains why. Hopefully nobody will quote my conclusion and start to explain to me why it’s biologically impossible for a monkey to perform well in an administrative position.

This sort of thing happen frequently on this, or on any board, and it annoys me.

It’s true that I only singled you out because Xeovk is my friend. That doesn’t change the fact that you quoted his conclusion, treated it as an argument and dragged it in a direction that had nothing to do with the issue at hand.

 

[Mal Malenkirk]

Whee!
Chris, DM of ECLed charcters, and so far, the ones in Dragon are working well....

Which ones? Inquiring mind wants to know.

 

[Marshall]

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.

Useful, yes.

2)Even if the fighter uses reach weapons, so the fighter's weapon is MUCH easier to sunder (he has less HP).

Nope. Depends on the weapon and the weapon used, nothing to do with the characters.

3)The ogre has a +7 bonus (relative to the fighter) to disarm an opponent.

Dependant on relative weapon size, could be an advantage, could not.

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.

See Above.

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.

Comes to a +7 bonus plus possible weapon size difference, and that will never change no matter what the ECL is. It only tangentially relevant to the discussion.

6)Since trip attacks are purely Str+size modifier checks he will have a +9 over the fighter, which is very good.

actually with the relevant reach weapons, this drops to +5 still good but the bonus feats from the fighter could actually make him a better tripper.

7)He has more HP, maybe "only" +12 at this level, but this difference will only increase since he has a better Con.

Actually I said '2' with an additional 20-22 over the 20 levels, good but nearly irrelevant at the higher levels.

8)The Ogre can use an (Huge) halberd, to increase his reach too

Sure if he want s to screw himself, giving up both 5' and 10' reach
is a huge penalty.

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

Xeovke

Yup, the ogre is good at combat. And all these are dependant on the ogre maximizing his benefits. Hes also as only semi-intelligent and as charasmatic as a pile of dung.

You can role-play away mental disadvantages, but then your not really roleplaying very well. What happens when poor ghorgor has to solve a riddle to save the parties life?

Basically the physical advantages are ECL8
The Mental dis-advantages are easilly equal to -3 ECL...

 

[Axiomatic Unicorn]

Marshall,

I think you have really misrepresented the argurments your are trying to challenge.

For example, you say that the ease of sunder is dependent of the weapons selected therefore it is a non-issue. This dodges the point that for every weapon, the ogre's version will be harder to sunder. A totally non-arbitrary advantage for the ogre

Same for disarm, the ogres equivalent weapons always larger, so the advantage is always there.

Comes to a +7 bonus plus possible weapon size difference, and that will never change no matter what the ECL is. It only tangentially relevant to the discussion.

?????

First, your comment that it will never change regardless of the ECL is odd. None of the ogre's inherent advantages or disdvantages will change no matter what the ECL is. What is your point?

And you are saying that a +7 bonus is only tangentially relevant???? I would say that is dead center important.


On trip attacks: Before you were claiming that issues that required specific weapon selection were not valid for establishing an advantage, now you are using that line of reasoning. But to address your point, yes a fighter could spend feats to achieve the same or better results. No one has claimed that a human fighter can't be better than the ogre fighter. As a matter of fact, it is my contention that at the correct ECL a human fighter SHOULD be better at straight combat than the ogre. Just because a fighter COULD do it with feats does not mean the ogre automatically having this ability is not an advantage that should be accounted for. It is still an ability inherent to the ogre and should be part of the ECL.

On hit points, you don't dispute it, you simply blow it off. OK.

On using a Huge halberd. You say he would be screwing himself.
Huh???
Having the option of a 15 foot reach is flat out a good thing. A human with a reach weapon usually can not attack with 5 feet. That is not screwing him, that is making a trade off.
The ogre can use weapons to attack 5 and 10 feet away and has the tactical option of using weapons that can attack 15 feet away. That is nothing but a pure advantage.

Yes he is low in INT and CHR. So what? Are you in the camp that thinks half-orcs "got the shaft"? The primary concept for an ogre fighter is going to feel very little loss. Some loss, sure. A serious drawback to the concept? No, a dumb low charisma thumper IS the concept.

If he has to solve a riddle to save a party, the party is in deep trouble.
If the party cleric has to quietly sneak past a demon and a beholder, the party is in deep trouble.
If the party wizard has to go toe-to-toe with the evil weapon master without using spells, the party is in deep trouble.

Edit: I'm out of town for a few days, may or may not be able to respond.

 

[Xeovke]

Apologies

As a note, the Ogre's ECL should be calculated so that it is fine in the optimal campaign with the optimal class, so the fact that a Troll was good in ECL+8 in Myth's campaign, it only means that the Troll's ECL is *at least* +8, and in the same manner, Ghorgor (the Ogre) being good at ECL +8 in our campaign only means that an Ogre ECL should be *at least* +8.

Myth, I mentionned the Tarrasque because nobody really wants to know what the ECL of the Tarrasque is, so whatever the number it would not make sense anyway (I mean, it takes a wish spell cast when she is -10HP or -30HP to kill the tarrasque, with such an ability I don't feel like any ECL would be appropriate, either too high or too low). Did you see the thread on the tarrasque's ECL? that is why I used this monster:it feels clearly silly to give an ECL to the tarrasque, hence such a statement could not be serious. The thing is I was surprised (that's what the ?!? where about) that someone thought the Ogre was equal to the fighter, while he was only better than him, and not by small numbers as I pointed out in my post, and yet someone could consider this as "dead even" (which has a connotation of being an indubitable result in my mind). It was an expression of shock, I certainly did not intend to insult anybody in any way. I apologize if it did. To me, saying things like "If +8 for an ogre is right, then I suppose a Half orc should not be too wrong at ECL+5." is only a way of expressing an opinion while stating how shocked you are (since it is utterly silly to have an half-orc at ECL+5, in the same way that the tarrasque is utterly silly at ECL+20), unless there is an argument after that explaining why you feel the half-orcs ECL should be +5.

BTW, partial quoting is a form of distortion (which you illustrated so well by only quoting the parts of my texts that were not arguments, and then considering them as such: saying my whole argument is off simply because the last sentence did not make sense (as it was intended)). You may not have intended to make it, but it still is a form of fallacy. A good example of a similar fallacy would be:
[FALLACY]
"
Your argument is off
Ogre, CR2 , ECL+5 (DMG)
If you were to compare the two it would be:
Tarrasque CR20, ECL +50.
(and +50 ECL sounds a lot closer to right, over the +80 in the Dragon Mag.)
"
hence dwarf(not classed) CR .5=ECL 1.25
Your argument is off.
[/FALLACY]
It's a fallacy, since this had nothing to do about the main point of your argument (to which my answer was that ECL is calculated for the optimal class in the optimal campaign) and was out of context. It distorts completely your point. Incidently it shows that CR is not at all a good point in determining the ECL.
Again, I apoligize if my over reaction did any harm.
Xeovke

 

[Marshall]

Re: Apologies

As a note, the Ogre's ECL should be calculated so that it is fine in the optimal campaign with the optimal class, so the fact that a Troll was good in ECL+8 in Myth's campaign, it only means that the Troll's ECL is *at least* +8, and in the same manner, Ghorgor (the Ogre) being good at ECL +8 in our campaign only means that an Ogre ECL should be *at least* +8.

And the rest of us are saying that that is "Big Mistake"

Put poor Ghorgor into a sub-optimal situation, so far youve described to scenarios where Ghorgor *should* stand out. Youve played to his strengths now play to his weaknesses. When you do you'll find out that the at +8 ECL not only is he weak, hes darn near unplayable.

AU: about the sunder thing- he can use larger weapons, but in a 'realistic' fantasy campaign he'll be stuck with normal human weapons because weapons his size just wont be available. Same for disarm, while conversely the human will find it easy to have those things that will counter an Ogres advantages.

The +7 to damage will weaken substantially as the ogre goes up in levels and mega damage becomes more and more commonplace. As a % it gets to be a weaker bonus the higher the ECL gets. Whats very good at ECL 5, is only fair at ECL 8

Its my contention that at the correct ECL an Ogre Fighter will be better at fighting than a human, because, well, hes the epitome of specialization. Its all he does. Take him out of combat and 'thumb up his a**' is mild.

 

[Mal Malenkirk]

Re: Re: Apologies

And the rest of us are saying that that is "Big Mistake"

And the rest of you aren't using an ogre at ECL 8 in their campaign. But apparently, you seem able to see from theory things that I am unable to see in practice.

Originally posted by Marshall
Put poor Ghorgor into a sub-optimal situation, so far youve described to scenarios where Ghorgor *should* stand out. Youve played to his strengths now play to his weaknesses. When you do you'll find out that the at +8 ECL not only is he weak, hes darn near unplayable.

1-When I play to Ghorgor's weaknesses, every fighter type suffer. His weaknesses are similar to those of the 11th level fighter adventuring with him.

2-You are making a pretty strong statement for someone who isn't platesting Ghorgor. You say that I will find that Ghorgor is "darn near unplayable" under suboptimal circumstances? You know this for a fact? You tried it?

Ghorgor main weakness is his relatively low HP; it did show up in an encounter as I've writen in a previous post. It didn't prove fatal. His will save is similar to all the other fighter types; weak. But so far he hasn't failed his will save. Aside from that, he's doing fine compared to an 11th level fighter. Anything else that lowers his efficiency would lower the efficiency of any other fighter.

Originally posted by Marshall
AU: about the sunder thing- he can use larger weapons, but in a 'realistic' fantasy campaign he'll be stuck with normal human weapons because weapons his size just wont be available. Same for disarm, while conversely the human will find it easy to have those things that will counter an Ogres advantages.

Ghorgor has an enchanted great axe (Huge) that was crafted from a Guillotine blade by his tribe's shaman. He has a nifty Halfplate crafted from Ankheg shell. His cloak of resistance is made out of a curtain.

Is there a probem with that as far as the "realism" of a fantasy campaign is concerned?

Note that under normal rules, most magic items shape themselves to fit their wearer with the obvious exception of arms and armor.

Originally posted by Marshall
The +7 to damage will weaken substantially as the ogre goes up in levels and mega damage becomes more and more commonplace. As a % it gets to be a weaker bonus the higher the ECL gets. Whats very good at ECL 5, is only fair at ECL 8.

It's not just +7 to damage. He also uses bigger weapons. Ghorgor currently deals 2D8+17. In 4-6 levels he could easily deal 2D8+24. I'll let you know when this becomes a weak edge, ok?

Originally posted by Marshall
Its my contention that at the correct ECL an Ogre Fighter will be better at fighting than a human, because, well, hes the epitome of specialization. Its all he does. Take him out of combat and 'thumb up his a**' is mild.

ARG! Enough with that argument! That's true of any standard fighter. Heck, that's also true of the psychic warrior and of quite a few barbarians (those with low INT like most half-orc).

 

[Wolfspider]

Mal, I just wanted to thank you for posting your playtest results here. They're pretty interesting. Have you emailed Dragon with your comments about the ECL numbers they gave?

 

[Mal Malenkirk]

Mal, I just wanted to thank you for posting your playtest results here. They're pretty interesting. Have you emailed Dragon with your comments about the ECL numbers they gave?

Well, no. Perhaps I should, but to tell them what? "Congratulation guys, the ECL of the ogre seem to be right on the money!" It might make them feel good, but I have nothing new to tell them.

But let me give you more food for thought; Troll as ECL 11.

Those who have Lord of the Iron Fortress can take a look at the last page of the module to see the stats of Tordek as a 15th level fighter.

Key stats;

Atk; +27/+22/+17, Dmg 1D10+13/19-20 X3
AC 32
HP: 147 (15D10+60)

Let's turn him into a 4th level troll fighter; (I'm guessing that Tordek 3 bonus attribute points were sank in STR).

(including enhancement bonus)

STR 34
DEX 19
CON 28
WIS 10
INT 6
CHA 4

Using a greatsword in one hand instead of a dwarven axe

Atk; +24/+19 (8 BAB, -1 size, +4 enchanted sword, +12 STR, +1 Wfocus)
Dmg; 2d6+18

(Using a chain shirt instead of a fullplate)

AC 35
HP: Probably around 134 (6D8+4D10+90)

And that troll wouldn't be using an amulet of natural armor +2 like the one Tordek is using, nor would he use a dwarven thrower (X3 warhammer that can be thrown). He'd have some other items, things that protect him against fire and acid, for example.

That troll could forget about using a shield (dropping AC to 30) and use a Huge great sword (2D8+24) if he wanted to favor offense.

Tordek's advantage;

-More HP (not for long, the Troll is catching up very fast).

-Much more feats and a better BAB. This allows tordek to be a pretty good ranged fighter, an area where the Troll can compete with him.

-3 attacks and a better total atk bonus.

-More skills (not much an advantage when you look at Tordek's skill, at least the troll has listen&spot!)

Troll advantage;

He's large (reach, bonus to grapple, trip etc.)

He moves faster.

He's very dangerous even when unarmed (2 claws 1 bite + rend)

He REGENERATES. Only fire and acid (and instakill) can seriously hurt him. Add some items that protect against acid and fire and consider that he has a +20 fortitude save to protect him against instakill and you'll understand that this PC is very hard to kill.

Frankly, perhaps the Troll is TOO strong as ECL 11. But I won't form a final opinion on this matter until I've playtested a Troll PC.

 

[whatisitgoodfor]

Does anyone else feel that using a min/maxxed ECL creature to determine proper ECLs is a little bit wrong?

If you don't, then are you going to start making all of your half-orc barbarians, halfling rogues, and gnome illusionists play as ECL +1 creatures? After all, they are better at what they are doing than an equal level human would be.