ECL of monsters: Playtest of a centaur

[Ancalagon]

Greetings

Some background: this is a 2nd ed campain converted to 3e. The centaur, a ranger, went from level 9 to level 4 (ECL 5). The other party members were level 9 bard, level 10 necromancer and fighter/mage level 6/5.

After playing an adventure, here is what we noticed:

The centaur is a high speed tank! While he doesn't have reach as a ogre, he is very, very fast. His strenght bonus is almost as good, he has a great con (+4), much better AC (better dex) and he can make devastating charges. Using his hooves and his ranger 2 weapon fighting abilities, he could land a whooping 5 attacks per round. His high strenght made up for the -5 attack penalties on the hooves. The high mobility, dex and strengh also make him a very, very dangerous archer. He completely outfought the fighter/mage.

It wasn't clear to us if a centaur could use large weapons one handed, so I compromised and allowed him to keep using his bastard sword one handed without an exotic weapon proficiency. However, he couldn't use large weapons one handed. By the letter of the rule he could, but I thought it didn't make much sense.

Due to his high wisdom and centaur skills, this PC was also quite good at being a ranger, although probably not as much as a human ranger of the same level.

The centaur had great saves... with improved con, dex and wisdom being a factor, and the good saves a centaur gets (I think they have good will).

Disadvantage of being a centaur: yes, stairs and tunels are a pain. The player (in the 2nd ed game) traded a rather powerfull item (I think it was a ring of protection +2) for a ring that casted reduce 4 times per day to partialy resolve this problem. On the other hand, he is extremely hard to trip.

Conclusion: The old ECL of a centaur of 5 is much too low. I think the new value of 7 is closer to the mark. I would argue that a centaur is better than a ogre... therefore, either the new centaur ECL is too low, or the ogre one is too high.

In the game, the player asked (and I granted it) to be "converted" to a human, since he felt he was too much of a tank and not enough of a ranger. We're going to try the WoT woodsman instead of the ranger, but that is another story!

Ancalagon

 

[Mal Malenkirk]

Hmm, a Centaur ECL is 7.

You realize that all these debates over ECL in the past weeks refer the ECL given in the Dragon Magazine 293? Not the DMG +class level mechanic.

And maybe the Centaur is a wee bit too strong at ECL 7, I'll take a look when I get my hand on my MM.

 

[Ancalagon]

Oh, I know that.

In case it wasn't clear: we used the FRCS ECL rules, we did this before the new values came out.

This is still relevant, because my playtest illustrates that ECL 5 is indeed to low, and that 7 would be a minimum IMO"

Ancalagon

 

[twjensen]

Oh, I know that.

In case it wasn't clear: we used the FRCS ECL rules, we did this before the new values came out.

This is still relevant, because my playtest illustrates that ECL 5 is indeed to low, and that 7 would be a minimum IMO"

Ancalagon

And has the advantage of an actual playtest to back up that opinion.

 

[Mal Malenkirk]

Oh, I know that.

In case it wasn't clear: we used the FRCS ECL rules, we did this before the new values came out.

This is still relevant, because my playtest illustrates that ECL 5 is indeed to low, and that 7 would be a minimum IMO"

Ancalagon

And I agree with you. In fact, if I compare a centaur to an ogre, the exemple I know best, I feel the Centaur should be ECL 8.

Let's compare;

Both have 4 HD.

Centaur are L, 5X10/5 feet reach. Ogre are L, 5X5/10 feet reach. There are advantages to be 4 legged, but overall ogre win.

Centaur has +2 natural armor VS an Ogre's +5. But the centaur has a 6 point edge in dexterity...

Monstrous humanoid have 2 strong save (Will and Reflex) instead of just one for giants (Fortitude). Centaur win.

Speed: Whoopdidoo! The centaur has a base speed of 50. He wins.

Abilities: The Ogre has a 2 point lead in strenght but the centaur has a 6(!) point edge in dexterity. Both have same constitution. But the Centaur has a vast advantage in mental stats; -2 intelligence, +2 wisdom VS -4 intelligence and -4 in charisma

True, mental stats are not nearly as useful as physical ones for fighting classes. Still, +2 to wis is sweet as it increase will saves, the traditional weakness. Centaur wins.

Skills: The centaur is a monstrous humanoid which gives him a lot more skill than a giant. Centaur wins.

The centaur wins on a lot of points. Still, the natural reach of the ogre is a powerful advantage. Because of this I think they are more or less evenly matched.

But I'd have to include a centaur fighter in my campaign it to compare it to Ghorgor to make sure... And I don't think I can't do that! My campaign is crowded enough as it is.

 

[Ancalagon]

Try a ranger... A centaur ranger is quite usefull outside of combat, unlike an ogre. In your analysis, you forgot the ability of the centaur to charge with a spear, and his natural attacks.

Ancalagon

 

[Wippit Guud]

You also missed the sickening benefit of having a rider on his back with mounted combat...

If both are using a lance, and both get a charge attack... ouch!

 

[chilibean]

You are only considering fighter type classes here. Yeah, ECL 7 or 8 sounds about right.

But what about a wizard? A centaur wizard 2 is not even close to a wizard 10. Not by a long shot. The ECL only really works for tanks since the creatures natural abilities stack and compliment nicely with a fighter.

I'm not sure if there is a fix, other than a case-by-case evaluation, but I'd like to see the results a playtesting a centaur wizard before the jury brings a verdict.

 

[drnuncheon]

You are only considering fighter type classes here. Yeah, ECL 7 or 8 sounds about right.

But what about a wizard? A centaur wizard 2 is not even close to a wizard 10. Not by a long shot. The ECL only really works for tanks since the creatures natural abilities stack and compliment nicely with a fighter.

I'm not sure if there is a fix, other than a case-by-case evaluation, but I'd like to see the results a playtesting a centaur wizard before the jury brings a verdict.

Yeah, that's right. Half-orcs should have an ECL of -1 because they make lousy wizards, bards, and sorcerers. Dwarves too, because they have that Cha penalty - n fact that hurts them as clerics or paladins as well. Oh, gnomes and hobbits aren't good fighter-types because of the Str penalty so we should lower their ECL too.

(OK, sarcasm over.)

Yeah, a centaur Wizard2 isn't going to be as good as a Wizard10. But you know what? You're making the wrong comparison there - it's like saying that a Fighter8/Wizard2 is clearly not 10th level because he can't cast as many spells as the Wizard10. Of course not! He's got other things that make up for it. So does the centaur. Like huge stat bonuses: Str +8, Dex +4, Con +4...

Sure, the centaur's not the optimal choice for a wizard. But to balance things correctly, you must look at the optimal choices - otherwise, when people take those optimal choices, the characters will be too good.

J

 

[Numion]

You also missed the sickening benefit of having a rider on his back with mounted combat...

If both are using a lance, and both get a charge attack... ouch!

..but that maneuver would be low on the style points. Efficient sure, but wouldn't that look just a bit ridiculous?