ECL Races, EVER worth it?

[Upper_Krust]

Hey victim!

The problem is that duplicating many monstrous abilities with spells or items comes at some cost. Take Fast Healing (or at will cure spells) for example. By itself, fast healing is only going to worth a few extra HP to a monster. Even with special mobility, characters will often bring the beastie down before it can employ much in the way of hit and run tactics. So what's the big deal? Most parties are going to be able to heal up with spells, potions, wands, etc anyway. But totally divourcing at least one person in the group from the need to have healing resources spent between fights is a big deal (at least, it is if that character usually takes damage). It's the same reason that most DMs don't allow unlimited use cure light items.

Well certainly cure spells at will could lead to problems at low-mid levels, however as long as you treat these as innate spells (as per the Forgotten Realms feat) then you won't have any trouble. In fact you could probably even reduce the factor for monsters depending on how intrinsic the ability is to their make-up.

Regeneration is less problematic, given it only applies to one character and that it can usually be overcome by certain properties. Fast healing is somewhat similar. But if players become dependant upon these abilities you can always given them some fights in short succession or even enemies who deal vile damage or enemies who attack other than dealing damage. So that advantage won't solve every dilemma they face, its convenient, but its not unbalancing.

I can't see the ability of a single character to start most battles with maximum hit points as unsettling anyones game. It also won't lop-side the group given that their advantage will free up more healing for the rest of the group.

If the entire group has fast healing at low-mid level then a DM may need to give some thought as to how to wear down a party - if such is their intention.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Howdy

Howdy yourself!

Note that you can apply mind blank to other creatures. Not just the braxat, but everyone in the party would have mind blank. Considering the benefits that it provides, I think a DM could consider that to be inappropriately problematic.

See my point about the Innate Spell feat in my previous post.

I have to admit the Braxat does get that very early indeed.

Flight's fine...at about 8th level or so you just have to deal with it. But at 1st I don't, which is something I realized when, against my better judgment, I allowed a player to have a trumpet archon monster class from Savage Species.

I just don't see how it would upset things? Though I suppose every campaign is different.

 

[Voadam]

Hey Felon!



Well, for a start a 10 HD (CR 9) monster is not likely to be ECL 9 is it! It s probably more akin to ECL 15 which is roughly when a spellcaster would potentially gain access to mind blank, which lasts 24 hours and as such would more or less be considered 'at will'.

Wasn't that the point being made? That CR does not equal ECL? And so that no matter how good your CR calculator is it should not be used for calculating ECL?

If a CR 9 monster is ECL 15 then that is a six level CR/ECL discrepancy.

Even the CR monsters with class advancement rules suggest that poor synergy in multiclassing should not be a 1 to 1 CR ECL relationship.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

I generally agree with Upper_Krust. Nine times out of ten, if the CR is accurate, it should be equal to the ECL.

In the Braxat's case, I think the problem is its CR, not its ECL. We're talking about a creature that has significantly more physical power than a 9th level fighter (+10 BAB, Str +12, Dex +2, Con +5, Large size, more attacks, +8 natural armor, DR 10/magic), is smarter than any of the core races (Int +4, Wis +2), and has supernatural, spell-like and psi-like abilities equivalent to a 9th level spellcaster who traded versatility for power.

Eyeballing this sucker, I'd call it CR 11 or 12, and I'd be as comfortable allowing it as a PC at ECL 12 or 13 as I would a 12th or 13th level core spellcaster.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey Voadam!

Wasn't that the point being made? That CR does not equal ECL? And so that no matter how good your CR calculator is it should not be used for calculating ECL?

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with my CR system? Therein CR and ECL are the same thing...as they should be I might add.

If a CR 9 monster is ECL 15 then that is a six level CR/ECL discrepancy.

This thats a discrepancy of the official system...not mine.

In my system *goes and works it out* the Braxat is CR 15 which means its ECL 15 as written or ECL 18 with 18th-level equipment.

Even the CR monsters with class advancement rules suggest that poor synergy in multiclassing should not be a 1 to 1 CR ECL relationship.

I totally agree (although that only applies to spellcasting classes to be fair), however thats not an indictment of my system but rather D&D multiclassing. You can actually solve that problem by making a characters caster level always equal to their total Hit Dice + (all) Levels.

 

[Psion]

This thats a discrepancy of the official system...not mine.

Careful there, Krusty. It's still not safe to assume that everyone heeds (heck, or even knows about) your take on ECL and CR. Much less assume the books were written assuming them.

 

[Voadam]

Hey Voadam!



Perhaps you are unfamiliar with my CR system? Therein CR and ECL are the same thing...as they should be I might add.



This thats a discrepancy of the official system...not mine.

In my system *goes and works it out* the Braxat is CR 15 which means its ECL 15 as written or ECL 18 with 18th-level equipment.



I totally agree (although that only applies to spellcasting classes to be fair), however thats not an indictment of my system but rather D&D multiclassing. You can actually solve that problem by making a characters caster level always equal to their total Hit Dice + (all) Levels.

OK I was misinterpreting your post above then where you only say the ECL should be 15 as accepting the CR as 9.

Are you suggesting a fighter 1 wizard 1 should cast spells as a wizard 2? Or just have caster level 2?

 

[The_Gneech]

Are you suggesting a fighter 1 wizard 1 should cast spells as a wizard 2? Or just have caster level 2?

I think the idea is that they'd still get the spells/day as a Wiz 1, but would be considered "2nd level" for duration, SR checks, and other scaling items. Thus, a Ftr 4/Wiz 1 would still fire off three missiles with a casting of magic missile.

This is a rule I've considered implementing myself, although a lot of the revised PrC's take care of it just as well with the "+1 level in spellcasting class" feature. (I love my Eldritch Knight!)

-The Gneech

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey Psion!

Careful there, Krusty. It's still not safe to assume that everyone heeds (heck, or even knows about) your take on ECL and CR.

Thats true...I keep forgetting.

Much less assume the books were written assuming them.

Now and again I spot threads where people voice their CR/ECL/EL problems and I keep thinking to myself "Are people really still having problems? I published the solution for all that years ago!"

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey Voadam!

OK I was misinterpreting your post above then where you only say the ECL should be 15 as accepting the CR as 9.

Thats okay. No worries mate!

Are you suggesting a fighter 1 wizard 1 should cast spells as a wizard 2? Or just have caster level 2?

Well, The Gneech has already explained (thanks for that dude), although the main problem with multiclass spellcasters is versus enemy spell resistance. I'm not sure I agree with the idea that caster level should change for anything other than spell resistance.

It sort of makes sense for spell resistance/penetration because (as a rule) spell resistance is a relative issue, whereas things like duration and spell damage are determined individually.