ECL of monsters: Playtest of a centaur

[HeavyG]

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

Since the rider is attacking with a reach weapon through the space occupied by the upper body of his centaur friend, I'd give him a -4 to hit from cover.

 

[bret]

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

OK, so how well do they work as Clerics or Druids?

They have a Wis bonus, which should be some help. If the only classes that the ECL is correct for is the fighting types, there is something wrong here.

The Centaur Cleric or Druid should probably be competitive with a ECL 0 race cleric using War or Strength domains. A cleric that is expected to get into fights.

 

[Sigma]

It would also be interesting to see a centaur thief. If they're able to make extra hoof attacks, that's going to add more sneak attack damage in a round than a comparable level thief could make. Tack on a strength bonus, and that could be ugly.

 

[bret]

Centaur Duelist (taking route through Rogue levels) could be really interesting. Is the lance listed as a Piercing weapon?

 

[drnuncheon]

The Centaur Cleric or Druid should probably be competitive with a ECL 0 race cleric using War or Strength domains. A cleric that is expected to get into fights.

I hope you mean "comparable to an ECL 0 race fighter/cleric - otherwise you've missed the point of what I said.

Only races with natural spellcasting powers can expect to keep up with non-ECLed spellcasters, at least in the spellcasting arena. An aranea, for example, should not be too far behind the human sorcerers (assuming you let its sorcerer levels stack with its natural spellcasting - and I can see no reason why not.)

The ECL is not only always correct for the "fighting types" - it is correct for the optimum type. The fact that that is usually a fighting type is a function of the monsters chosen, not of the ECL system itself.

J

 

[chilibean]

The main problem I have with the ECL system is that it levels the playing field during low levels of play, but causes a huge disparity at higher levels.

I can't imagine a centaur fighter 12 being equal to a fighter 20. By that level, those extra stat points have long since lost the big difference in effectiveness they once held. If you look at a class that doesn't stack well, like wizard, it becomes even more ridiculous. A centaur wizard 12 is so incredibly weaker than a wizard 20 it's not even funny.

At first level being a centaur cost you 28,000 xp. By 12th level, the equivalent cost rose to 124,000 xp (it cost you 124k more to get to 12th than it would have otherwise). So, while the increased effectiveness slowly gets overshadowed by other abilities and magic items, the cost keeps getting bigger.

If you progressed on the chart as a first level character that simply started at -28,000, then sure it would be ok. It would be a fixed cost that didn't keep getting bigger as you went. This seems much more fair and balanced than the way they have it now.

 

[CRGreathouse]

If you progressed on the chart as a first level character that simply started at -28,000, then sure it would be ok. It would be a fixed cost that didn't keep getting bigger as you went. This seems much more fair and balanced than the way they have it now.

I see... so a classless centaur is even with a human Ftr8, but a centaur Ftr18 is a little weaker than a human Ftr20.

 

[chilibean]

Exactly.

Playing a character that is a Centaur Fighter 1 was found to be equivalent to a fighter 8. This wasn't my finding, it was others on this thread and I'm not arguing it. It seems somewhat reasonable to me, assuming they both have about the same amount of magical gear.

Playing a Centaur Fighter 18 would SEEM to me to be very similiar in ability to a Fighter 20. Certainly much closer than a Centaur Fighter 12 would be.

 

[HeavyG]

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

I just got an even better idea. Both the centaur and the rider could fight with two lance, two-weapon style.

Hey, there's no rule against it.

(Notice I didn't say they could both charge with two lances. That would be ridiculous.)

 

[CRGreathouse]

Exactly.

Playing a character that is a Centaur Fighter 1 was found to be equivalent to a fighter 8. This wasn't my finding, it was others on this thread and I'm not arguing it. It seems somewhat reasonable to me, assuming they both have about the same amount of magical gear.

Playing a Centaur Fighter 18 would SEEM to me to be very similiar in ability to a Fighter 20. Certainly much closer than a Centaur Fighter 12 would be.

Human Ftr20
Centaur Ftr18

Let's do some compare/contrast. The human has 2 (or 1?) more feats. The centaur has 2 more BAB. The centaur has 50-70 more hit points. The human has more skill points, but the centaur can put more points into "good" skills. The centaur deals +6 damage from Strength and +2 damage from using a larger weapon. The centaur has better Dex and thus AC and Reflex saves. The centaur is much faster. The centaur has natural armor in an antimagic field. The centaur can charge without a mount.

The human doesn't have a chance.