ECL Races, EVER worth it?

[Felon]

I would also, in 3.75 edition, mostly eliminate Racial Hit Dice (especially for intelligent creatures) in favor of class levels for creatures. The defaul Ogre in the Monster Manual could have warrior levels, demons could have rogue or aristocrat levels, centaurs could have expert levels, and dragons could have sorcerer levels (since they're constantly described as magic users). And any DM who wants to change a monster could easily swap in a different class for an easy way to achieve variety in encounters.

That's a little farther than I'd take it. Humanoids, definitely, but a lot of monsters are tough by simple virtue of being a monster. OTOH, I think it would make sense to have a monster hit die be approximately as beneficial as a comparable class's hit die. For instance, a hit die for a giant should be similar to a fighter level. The end result is simply that you ramp down the number of hit dice that a given giant has. Make an ogre 3d10 dice instead of 4d8 and he winds up with similar hit points and BAB, but is now a much more appealing choice for a player.

Likewise, I'd say a monstrous humanoid should probably be brough in line with the ranger--which right now basically means more skill points. I'd really love to know why most monsters get 2 per level, then there's outsiders getting 8--and having fighter hit dice and monk saving throws to boot. Pretty nuts.

 

[LightPhoenix]

I don't particularly think ECL is a bad mechanic. I'm not entirely convinced the right angle is used to ascribe an ECL to a creature, especially with regards to HD and abilities. These have all been mentioned before.

The biggest problem with ECL, IMO, is that it assumes levels are generally linear. In fact, it assumes the game as a whole is linear. We all know that not to be true. A 20th level character most certainly does not equal two 10th level ones. Furthermore, spellcasting is very much non-linear, which creates more of a curve for any spellcasting class, which is half of the classes in the game. If the level curve is not linear, then ECL is simply not going to work as it was intended. The idea wasn't bad at all, it just doesn't work with the non-linear nature of levels in D&D.

There's an assumption that you always balance a race's ECL with it's best class. I think that's wrong. IMO your best bet for ECL is to balance everything as a Fighter. Fighter is by far the most linear class - no spellcasting, clear, steady progression of skills (except 1st level). If an Aasimar Fig 5 is roughly equivalent to a Human Fig 4, then it's roughly ECL+1. If they make better Paladins, or worse Rogues, whatever. There has to be a few points of balance - one of those is the Human race, another should be, IMO, the Fighter class.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I love playing the unusual, so I'm not about to let ECL bother me.

Yes, some of the ECLs ARE out of whack, and there probably is a better way...Monte Cook's racial levels from AU are pretty good.

What matters to me is mainly the role play of the oddball critter. Still, some are enough out of whack that I don't play them, and instead go for an approximation.

 

[Rel]

Another consideration popped into my head just now and I don't recall it being mentioned so far in this thread (but I haven't had my second cup of coffee yet either ) and that is roleplaying penalties associated with offbeat races. I know that one of the principles of 3E was "Don't balance mechanical bonuses with roleplaying penalties." And I think that in general that is a good policy.

But in cases where a player wants to play a race that will suffer persecution and hatred for being of that race then I could see relaxing the restrictions a bit provided that EVERYBODY was up front about what to expect. For example, if a player wanted to play a Bugbear or Gnoll in a setting where those two races were hunted for bounty, I might think about knocking off one of those racial levels, thereby effectively lowering the ECL by 1. But I would explain to that player and ALL the players in the group that this would mean staying hidden or away from civilized areas. The PC might have to involuntarily invest ranks in subterfuge skills or concealment magic in order to keep from being attacked on sight.

Again, I would make sure that the player in question understood the circumstances they would encounter so they didn't think they were getting something for nothing. And I'd also make sure the other players knew the deal too because they could easily get tarred with the same brush if it came to light that they were associated with the PC in question. Only if they all agreed to put up with the added hassle would I proceed on this basis.

In my current group, the inclusion of a Bugbear and Hobgoblin does not automatically incur the wrath of the local populace (since I'm using Eberron and these are established and more or less accepted races for that setting). As a result, I didn't relax any of the LA restrictions. But the PC's are doing an adequate job of alienating others anyway since they have crappy Charismas.

 

[Voadam]

Another consideration popped into my head just now and I don't recall it being mentioned so far in this thread (but I haven't had my second cup of coffee yet either ) and that is roleplaying penalties associated with offbeat races. I know that one of the principles of 3E was "Don't balance mechanical bonuses with roleplaying penalties." And I think that in general that is a good policy.

But in cases where a player wants to play a race that will suffer persecution and hatred for being of that race then I could see relaxing the restrictions a bit provided that EVERYBODY was up front about what to expect. For example, if a player wanted to play a Bugbear or Gnoll in a setting where those two races were hunted for bounty, I might think about knocking off one of those racial levels, thereby effectively lowering the ECL by 1. But I would explain to that player and ALL the players in the group that this would mean staying hidden or away from civilized areas. The PC might have to involuntarily invest ranks in subterfuge skills or concealment magic in order to keep from being attacked on sight.

Again, I would make sure that the player in question understood the circumstances they would encounter so they didn't think they were getting something for nothing. And I'd also make sure the other players knew the deal too because they could easily get tarred with the same brush if it came to light that they were associated with the PC in question. Only if they all agreed to put up with the added hassle would I proceed on this basis.

In my current group, the inclusion of a Bugbear and Hobgoblin does not automatically incur the wrath of the local populace (since I'm using Eberron and these are established and more or less accepted races for that setting). As a result, I didn't relax any of the LA restrictions. But the PC's are doing an adequate job of alienating others anyway since they have crappy Charismas.

So the bugbear and gnoll get an LA reduction and the other party members might get in trouble for being around them. If the campaign is a dungeon crawl then no penalty. If it is city based and the monstrous PCs are dangerous wanted men then they just became the focus of the campaign and are an ECL above their compatriots. Or they buy 2,000 gp hats of disguise and it is not much of a problem for their +1 ECL. Either way, sounds like a disincentive to play the core races if anybody in the party is a monstrous PC. [assuming you think the bugbear and gnoll LA is balanced as is for normal campaigns as you did in your eberron example]

 

[I'm A Banana]

But in cases where a player wants to play a race that will suffer persecution and hatred for being of that race then I could see relaxing the restrictions a bit provided that EVERYBODY was up front about what to expect.

It's a fine house rule, but it's a bad idea as an official rule, because campaigns vary drastically. What might be "persecuted and hated" in one campaign could be hailed as common in another, or considered heroes in a third, or "just another humanoid" in the fourth...

 

[Rel]

It's a fine house rule, but it's a bad idea as an official rule, because campaigns vary drastically. What might be "persecuted and hated" in one campaign could be hailed as common in another, or considered heroes in a third, or "just another humanoid" in the fourth...

Just so I'm clear, I was absolutely NOT advocating for that being an official rule. I was pointing out the same thing as you: Circumstances vary from campaign to campaign and in a situation where the PC WILL take on a "roleplaying penalty" for his choice of race then I might consider giving them a (small) break on the LA situation.

The circumstance wherein I see this working the best is when you are running a "baddies" campaign where all the PC's are dastardly or shunned. In that case I might issue a blanket proclamation that all PC's could ignore one racial level or LA or (if playing a normally LA+0 race) start one level higher. This might compensate for the fact that they would have to operate around the fringes of society or at least cough up some dough for a Hat of Disguise (as Voadam suggests).

EDIT: I think one other thing I was sort of suggesting by way of my last post is that some GM's might view the current LA adjustments as overly harsh due to roleplaying restrictions that they are imposing. The LA attempts (from what I can tell) only to compensate for mechanical superiority. So even if we will stipulate that a Hobgoblin Fighter 2 and Human Fighter 3 are on equal footing from a mechanical standpoint, if all Hobgoblins are killed on sight in civilized areas of the campaign world then the Hobgoblin is unquestionably an inferior choice.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

EDIT: I think one other thing I was sort of suggesting by way of my last post is that some GM's might view the current LA adjustments as overly harsh due to roleplaying restrictions that they are imposing. The LA attempts (from what I can tell) only to compensate for mechanical superiority. So even if we will stipulate that a Hobgoblin Fighter 2 and Human Fighter 3 are on equal footing from a mechanical standpoint, if all Hobgoblins are killed on sight in civilized areas of the campaign world then the Hobgoblin is unquestionably an inferior choice.

Your stipulation is just plain wrong, though.

Assume a 25 pt point buy, dwarf, human and hobgoblin fighters, all spending their points the same way.

Dwarf: Str 14, Dex 14, Con 16, Int 10, Wis 13, Cha 6
Hobgoblin: Str 14, Dex 16, Con 16, Int 10, Wis 13, Cha 8
Human: Str 14, Dex 14, Con 14, Int 10, Wis 13, Cha 8

Dwarf: 30 hp
Hobgoblin: 22 hp
Human: 27 hp

Dwarf: Dwarven Waraxe +5 melee (1d10+2/x3)
Hobgoblin: Long Sword +4 melee (1d8+2/19-20)
Human: Long Sword +5 melee (1d8+2/19-20)

Dwarf: Longbow +5 ranged (1d8/x3)
Hobgoblin: Longbow +5 ranged (1d8/x3)
Human Longbow +5 ranged (1d8/x3)

Dwarf: 4 feats
Hobgoblin: 3 feats
Human: 5 feats

Dwarf: AC 21 (+8 armor, +2 shield, +1 Dex)
Hobgoblin: AC 21 (+8 armor, +2 shield, +1 Dex)
Human: AC 21 (+8 armor, +2 shield, +1 Dex)

Dwarf: 12 skill points, +8 situational skill bonuses
Hobgoblin: 10 skill points, +4 total skill bonuses
Human: 18 skill points

Dwarf: Fort +6 (+8 vs. magic or poison), Ref +3 (+5 vs. magic), Will +2 (+4 vs. magic)
Hobgoblin: Fort +6, Ref +3, Will +1
Human: Fort +5, Ref +3, Will +2

Dwarf: Darkvision 60 ft., +4 AC vs. giants, +1 attack vs. orcs, gobs, Stability, move in armor, (-)land speed 20 ft.
Hobgoblin: Darkvision 60 ft.
Human: Favored Class: any

With the LA, a hobgoblin fighter has one better Fort save than a human (same as a dwarf, except against magic and poison where it's 2 less) and darkvision (also same as a dwarf). He loses, on average, +1 to hit in melee, 2 feats, 5 hp, 8 skill points, +1 Will save, and Favored Class (any).

The hobgoblin's Dex and Move Silently bonuses probably won't benefit him one whit because as a fighter, he's more likely than not going to be wearing full plate by ECL 3 (a +4 Dex bonus would allow him to wear lighter armor and have the same AC; +2 does not), and the +1 to hit at range is counteracted by -1 BAB.

At ECL 9, the hobgoblin finally catches up to the human in (average) hit points, as his Con bonus nets him 74 hp to the human's 73. If both had put a 16 into Con before racial adjustments rather than a 14, the hobgoblin wouldn't take the lead until ECL 10. Of course, the hobgoblin *never* catches the dwarf in hp, remaining an average of 8.5 hp behind his entire career.

The hobgoblin typically qualifies for feats and Prestige Classes one level later than the human or dwarf.

 

[Rel]

Your stipulation is just plain wrong, though.

GAH!! Work with me here, people!

I'm not contending that Hobgoblins SHOULD have a +1LA or a +0LA or a +23LA! It is NOT MY POINT.

I'm saying that IF Race A and Race B are made to be balanced to each other mechanically, but Race B suffers from racial persecution and hatred based on the SETTING then Race B is still at a disadvantage compared to Race A. That is all.

 

[Psion]

I'm saying that IF Race A and Race B are made to be balanced to each other mechanically, but Race B suffers from racial persecution and hatred based on the SETTING then Race B is still at a disadvantage compared to Race A. That is all.

I am firmly of the opinon that "racial persecution" should never translate directly into a mechanical advantage. The same goes for most role-playing related disadvantages.

What it might do is represent a challenge that, like other challenges, translate into XPs.

But really, is it really so different if you have four wilderness encounters per session as opposed to three wilderness encounters and one agry mob to deal with by diplomacy, flight, or fight?

(FWIW, I also have hated this syndrome ever since the "fighters with bad atttitudes" in 1e UA.)