ECL Races, EVER worth it?

[Psion]

Thanks for stopping by

Is it a perfect solution? Of course not--it's a kludge, applied after the fact to handle a situation not anticipated by the original ruleset.

Understood.

Looking back from today, if R&D could go back in time we'd likely make all the races in the PH a bit better. We'd give out some mental stat adjustments (such as, say, +2 Int to elves to back up the "elves are preeminent wizards" claim that gets passed around like candy--who does PR for these guys, anyway?)

That warms my heart.

But if this is the case, why does it seems there is a paranoia about giving LA 0 races no int bonus in the core set?

We'd also probably kick a bit of power out from under the drow, svirfneblin, githzerai (+6 Dex? Bah), and other races that we'd like to see get played as PCs at least occasionally.

Whoa, I'd advocate being careful there. Declawing the drow is a sin of the father, AFAIAC. Drow are first and foremost a monstrous race. Looking back to the 1e UA, making "PC-ized" drow made for an uncomfortable dichotomy. They still seem to be missing some of their classic spell like abilities in 3e, but at least a drow is a drow is a drow now, and I think PC-izing drow would be a poor excuse for nerfing them out to the point they are unrecognizable.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

Andy,

That *really* clears up the issue!

The issue of 'pushing the envelope' on Level Adjustments in recent products is very interesting to me; in almost all respects, I don't see the alleged 'power creep' in the 3.5 supplements, but this is a case where it was very much needed and seems to be in evidence.

Of course, that makes the 3.0 half-ogre look even more of a mistake, since it actually got a further +1 LA added in 3.5!

I'm glad to see this area of the game undergoing continued development, and I like the direction you want to go with it.

 

[seankreynolds]

Whoa, I'd advocate being careful there. Declawing the drow is a sin of the father, AFAIAC. Drow are first and foremost a monstrous race. Looking back to the 1e UA, making "PC-ized" drow made for an uncomfortable dichotomy.

Which is the main reason we decided to make regular drow as a PC-playable race in the FRCS rather than making an LA +0 "surface drow" race that nobody would want to play (because they wanted to play the "real" drow). Which meant we had to invent something like LA.

They still seem to be missing some of their classic spell like abilities in 3e,

I don't have my 1E books handy, but I believe the only thing they're missing are the SLAs that females and femal clerics get at 6th level, which we made available as a feat in Faiths and Pantheons. That's because (1) it's unfair and hard to balance something that only one gender gets, and (2) it didn't necessarily make sense that all drow females would get those extra abilities--for exampe, if they didn't worship Lolth. Making it a feat doesn't penalize the female drow (they have access to something the other characters don't), doesn't penalize the non-females (they can always take a different feat), and maintains relative ECL.

 

[Psion]

I don't have my 1E books handy, but I believe the only thing they're missing are the SLAs that females and femal clerics get at 6th level, which we made available as a feat in Faiths and Pantheons.

Well, it's been a long time since I looked, but as I recall, levitate was available to males (indeed, I remember this being featured in one of the Drizzt novels).

 

[seankreynolds]

I just don't understand why you think players who've "played out," in their opinions, the core races should be 'penalized' for chosing something else. Sure, playing an aasimar isn't crippling the character. Even playing a hobgoblin isn't, quite, crippling the character, as long as he takes a non-spellcasting class.

And I don't think that someone who chooses to play a core race should be "penalized" for doing so in a group where everyone else isn't playing a core race.

Think of it this way: LAs are in whole number increments because character levels are in whole number increments. By assigning a creature a whole number LA, we have one of three possibilities:
1) The LA is too low, and the character is better than a human of the same ECL.
2) The LA is too high, and the character is worse than a human of the same ECL.
3) The LA is exactly right, and the character is exactly the same power as a human of the same ECL.

Option 1 means there's an incentive to play the non-human character because not only do you get fun racial abilities, you end up better than a same-ECL human overall.
Option 2 means there's an incentive to play the human character (the "normal" character) because the human is slightly more powerful at each ECL. People who want to play the "weird" character are still likely to do so because they really want to play a weird character.
Option 3 means there is no incentive either way.

Now, given that it's almost impossible to achieve option 3, when given the choice between 1 and 2, which do you choose? A smart game designer chooses option 2 because if you choose option 1 you may as well ignore the PH races because they're worse that what you're creating. Then someone who comes along after you makes a new race, chooses option 1, and now your too-good race is weak because someone else's too-good race is even better for the same LA, even if only a little bit.

Andy makes a really good point (thanks, Andy) and I'll not waste my time or his rephrasing it other than to say: the game is evolving, as is our awarness, and we're going to continue to make refinements as time goes on with the intent of creating the best play experience.

I look forward to seeing its next incarnation! If it's not too much trouble, what would be, just off the top of your head, the number one thing you'd change about the LA system if you had complete freedom to rework it to taste?

I'd change how LA hinders spellcasters more strongly than non-spellcasters. Not sure exactly how to do it yet, but I have some ideas.

Playing "monsters" as characters is currently handled by the ECL (and LA +X) mechanic such as presented in Savage Species through straight builds and monster classes. Monster hit dice are treated as "equal" but some stink (Fey) and some are better than any PC class offers (Outsiders). Losing levels in exchange for special powers isn't balanced and is, IMO, too hard to compare with in order to reliably aim for balance.

I agree, there's a lot of guesswork.

I think the next generation of rules should use Character Class like progressions for playable monsters. Hit dice every level, a specific hit die size per creature, and the option to multi-class out of the monster class at any level.

I agree, that would be awesome (we've talked about that several times on my boards) ... have a real level progression for an ogre, with HD, ability score adjustments, and racial abilities incrementing just like a PH class at every level. Sorta like the racial levels that Monte did for AU/AE, actually.

Well, it's been a long time since I looked, but as I recall, levitate was available to males (indeed, I remember this being featured in one of the Drizzt novels).

That sounds familiar, but the only thing I'm remembering is in context of a battle with some drow wizards who were levitating, so I don't know if I'm remembering a racial ability or a spell. We'll have to wait until someone else chips in with an actual game book reference.

 

[HeapThaumaturgist]

This thread makes me happy inside. Like ice-cream. Or, as my wife would say, dead puppies.

I'm glad I got a look inside the design considerations for this mechanic, as contemplating the Warforged next to the Bugbear left my brain listing wildly to one side and taking on water. It all makes perfect sense, and something like this being better-addressed would be a selling-point for me for 4e.

As-is, it affirms one of my personal practices of creating "LA +0" races from the monstrous races for my games and the games of personal friends, just to encourage playing those races if they're a part of the system. It worked out very well for us ... so I think a full racial tweak-down would be great (but a little too House Rule Intensive for, say, pick-up games and games introducing new players), definately for 4e.

Hopefully when this goes down, the Half-Orc will get some lovin'. That poor boy got the beatin' stick all across his back. A net -2 stat adjustment AND "Orc Blood" ... when was the last time "applies only to orcs" was a GOOD thing to hear you were being targeted with? Y'coulda at least thrown them the double-axe.

--fje

 

[Psion]

That sounds familiar, but the only thing I'm remembering is in context of a battle with some drow wizards who were levitating, so I don't know if I'm remembering a racial ability or a spell. We'll have to wait until someone else chips in with an actual game book reference.

Again, it's been a while but I beleive in the very first novel, there was a scene that sort of set of Drizzt as a prodigy for learning levitation so early as a child. So no spellcasting there.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Again, it's been a while but I beleive in the very first novel, there was a scene that sort of set of Drizzt as a prodigy for learning levitation so early as a child. So no spellcasting there.

IIRC, it was an ability of drow nobles, and could only be used a limited number of times per day. Those nobles who carried their house insignia could use it at will.

 

[Psion]

Doesn't SOMEBODY have a book with 1e or 2e drow stats handy?

 

[werk]

I am about to start playing in my first game that's allowed LA races...tomorrow.

So, of course, I feel compelled to play something new. So far I've worked up two characters.

A deathtouched battle sorcerer headed for dragon disciple. Deathtouched is from Dragon mag, so if the DM disallows it, he'll be aasimar.
. the trade out here is +1LA in exchange for some resistances and stat modifiers.

A Duergar Fighter. Starting with a level in cleric, 2 levels in barbar, then strait fighter.
. trade out here is for the immunities and enlarge person ability.

I think the benefits granted in the above races are worth a level, but I guess I'll find out soon enough. We haven't started yet, so if you think I'm making a huge mistake, gimme a nudge.