ECL Races, EVER worth it?
- Thread starter HeapThaumaturgist
- Start date
![:]](http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/devious.png "Devious :]")
jmucchiello
Hero
I was wrong, you didn't quite get what I was saying. I'll try again. I used the words penalty and deficit interchangably but meant deficit each time. As in, character X with +4 ECLs has 10,000 fewer XP than character Y who does not. (10,000 xp comes straight from the XP chart.)seankreynolds said:
So if I want to play an Aasimar in a game where everyone starts at 4th level, everyone has 10,000 xp to start with and I spend 1,000 xp on my LA+1. So I have 9,000 xp. When each player earns 5,000 xp, those with 15,000 xp gain their 5th level, but I'm still 1,000 xp short.
With HD in the mix, the deficit is the levels after the hit dice so an ogre losses 11,000 xp for the LA+2 levels after 4th level (21,000 xp - 10,000 xp). So in an 8th level game he would have 25,000 xp vs the normal characters' 36,000 xp. So that gives him 2 class levels and leaves him 3,000 xp away from his 3rd class level. Still weaker than the 8th level party but at 20th level he is only 1/2 a level behind.
The generalized formula would be:
Code:
Deficit = SUM(racial HD, racial HD + LA) * 1,000 xp.When you need to know the party's strength, add the deficit back in to determine true effective character level. So while the Ogre has 6 HD, he is still an 8th level character for encounter level and xp award purposes.
I think this works much better than ECLs (and certainly better than percentage penalties). It stops punishing the character over time.
And for those few who've read Character Customization (yeah, it's still 3.0 based.) , I admit that I used percentage penalties for my "playing monsters" section (released before Savage Species). But those penalties ONLY applied while earning racial hit dice. I chose the percentage based on the LA of the creature so that one would lose an amount xp based on the formula above over the course of earning its racial hit dice/levels. I've since seen that while that equates to the system proposed above, it fails to take into account games that start above 1st level. The update (eventually) will contain the above system written better and with helpful examples. (And the d20 logo will go away in the process...)
seankreynolds
Adventurer
Your deficit system still doesn't work where it's important (at low levels) because the XP table isn't linear and your deficit value is.
Using the same "robot DM with 100 XP increment" example I linked to in my other post....
With a 1000 XP deficit for an LA+1 race, you can't play a 1st-level aasimar until the human characters are at least 2nd level. Yes, the aasimar is one level behind when the human has 1000 XP, and all the way up until the human has 2000 XP. But from human 2000 XP to human 2999 XP, the aasimar has 1000 XP to 1999 XP, which means they're both 2nd level at the same time (50% of the time that the human is 2nd level, the aasimar is also 2nd level). Again, as with the XP penalty system, the "penalized" character is the same level as the human character half the time or more at low levels.
The human is 3rd level from 3000 XP to 6000 XP, during which time the aasimar is 2000 XP to 5000 XP; within that range, the aasimar is 3rd level from 3000 XP to 5000 XP. So, out of the 3000 XP range that is the human at 3rd level, the aasimar is also 3rd level for 2000 XP of that time (66%).
The human is 4th level from 6000 to 10000; at the same time the aasimar is 5000 to 9000; within that range, the aasimar is 4th level from 6000 to 9000 XP. So the aasimar is the same level for 3000 of the 4000 XP in that range (75%).
So yes, you're right, at you gain levels the disparity between races decreases (for the human at 19th level, the aasimar is the same level 94% of the time). However, your deficit system still fails to do what it's supposed to: penalize LA-adjusted races at the lowest levels where it should make the most difference. Any system that puts a low-level aasimar and a human in the same party and says that 50% of the time or more the aasimar gets to be the same level as the human is a failure because there's no incentive to play a human character (repeating from my earlier post: if the aasimar is balanced at one level behind, then he's better at the same level, so if 50% of the time he's as powerful as the human and 50% of the time he's better, overall he's better because he averages out better than the human).
Using the same "robot DM with 100 XP increment" example I linked to in my other post....
With a 1000 XP deficit for an LA+1 race, you can't play a 1st-level aasimar until the human characters are at least 2nd level. Yes, the aasimar is one level behind when the human has 1000 XP, and all the way up until the human has 2000 XP. But from human 2000 XP to human 2999 XP, the aasimar has 1000 XP to 1999 XP, which means they're both 2nd level at the same time (50% of the time that the human is 2nd level, the aasimar is also 2nd level). Again, as with the XP penalty system, the "penalized" character is the same level as the human character half the time or more at low levels.
The human is 3rd level from 3000 XP to 6000 XP, during which time the aasimar is 2000 XP to 5000 XP; within that range, the aasimar is 3rd level from 3000 XP to 5000 XP. So, out of the 3000 XP range that is the human at 3rd level, the aasimar is also 3rd level for 2000 XP of that time (66%).
The human is 4th level from 6000 to 10000; at the same time the aasimar is 5000 to 9000; within that range, the aasimar is 4th level from 6000 to 9000 XP. So the aasimar is the same level for 3000 of the 4000 XP in that range (75%).
So yes, you're right, at you gain levels the disparity between races decreases (for the human at 19th level, the aasimar is the same level 94% of the time). However, your deficit system still fails to do what it's supposed to: penalize LA-adjusted races at the lowest levels where it should make the most difference. Any system that puts a low-level aasimar and a human in the same party and says that 50% of the time or more the aasimar gets to be the same level as the human is a failure because there's no incentive to play a human character (repeating from my earlier post: if the aasimar is balanced at one level behind, then he's better at the same level, so if 50% of the time he's as powerful as the human and 50% of the time he's better, overall he's better because he averages out better than the human).
AFGNCAAP
First Post
Well, to add to the perspective:
I'm currently playing in an Eberron campaign. Since the first character death, a race with an LA was used for the replacement character. These races were either build that way or the result of a template (the most recent versions included a 4-armed warforged & a half-elemental from Dragon).
IMHO, the LA isn't worth the level, esp. when it comes to spellcasters (that's when it realy hurts). The character's lacking a bit of that extra "oomph" that the other, LA 0 characters have, whether it's a higher save, Hit Dice, BAB, spells, etc. The extra cool ability isn't that rewarding in comparison, and you'll miss that extra Hit Die (or Dice), esp. against opponents capable of dishing out decent damage (for example, the strongest character in the group had the lowest HP, because her race had a high Str bonus, but also a high LA--she could be taken down easily in combat. Switching over to sorcerer was just as bad, because her spellcasting ability was so limited. Any special abilities were okay, but not great, esp. in a situation where they weren't as helpful--an extra class level seemed to be more versatile overall, esp. if it was an extra spellcasting level).
Due to this experience, I won't ban races with a LA > 0 IMC, but I will limit then # of them present in a game--they're definitely a character to be played for the concept rather than for the power (which, ironically, seems to be the inverse of the reason why some players choose these races in the first place).
I'm currently playing in an Eberron campaign. Since the first character death, a race with an LA was used for the replacement character. These races were either build that way or the result of a template (the most recent versions included a 4-armed warforged & a half-elemental from Dragon).
IMHO, the LA isn't worth the level, esp. when it comes to spellcasters (that's when it realy hurts). The character's lacking a bit of that extra "oomph" that the other, LA 0 characters have, whether it's a higher save, Hit Dice, BAB, spells, etc. The extra cool ability isn't that rewarding in comparison, and you'll miss that extra Hit Die (or Dice), esp. against opponents capable of dishing out decent damage (for example, the strongest character in the group had the lowest HP, because her race had a high Str bonus, but also a high LA--she could be taken down easily in combat. Switching over to sorcerer was just as bad, because her spellcasting ability was so limited. Any special abilities were okay, but not great, esp. in a situation where they weren't as helpful--an extra class level seemed to be more versatile overall, esp. if it was an extra spellcasting level).
Due to this experience, I won't ban races with a LA > 0 IMC, but I will limit then # of them present in a game--they're definitely a character to be played for the concept rather than for the power (which, ironically, seems to be the inverse of the reason why some players choose these races in the first place).
HeapThaumaturgist
First Post
Which is, as Sean said, sort of the point.
My eyeballin' gut feeling is that ECL races will be unviable for general play until that ECL accounts for only 1/4 or less of the PC's total Character Level. Even then, only specific races will be viable (those with Monstrous Humanoid and Outsider dice or no dice) and only as a non-caster.
I would suggest that maybe ECLed races should start with Negative Levels equal to their ECL, and lose them on stat increase levels (I.E. Bugbear would have 4 negative levels ... at 4th, 8th, 12th, and 16th he'd lose a negative level "for free" until his ECL was gone) but Negative Levels hit spellcasting and HP, which is specifically what I WOULDN'T want to hit.
The problem with ECL is that you lose class levels, and those are too important to pass up, no matter what kind of sweet power you get.
This is one reason I don't play Eberron, mind you. There's almost no reason not to play a warforged. I know WHY they made them +0 ECL, but the only reason to go anything else is if you've got a specific feat-centric build in mind and go human.
--fje
My eyeballin' gut feeling is that ECL races will be unviable for general play until that ECL accounts for only 1/4 or less of the PC's total Character Level. Even then, only specific races will be viable (those with Monstrous Humanoid and Outsider dice or no dice) and only as a non-caster.
I would suggest that maybe ECLed races should start with Negative Levels equal to their ECL, and lose them on stat increase levels (I.E. Bugbear would have 4 negative levels ... at 4th, 8th, 12th, and 16th he'd lose a negative level "for free" until his ECL was gone) but Negative Levels hit spellcasting and HP, which is specifically what I WOULDN'T want to hit.
The problem with ECL is that you lose class levels, and those are too important to pass up, no matter what kind of sweet power you get.
This is one reason I don't play Eberron, mind you. There's almost no reason not to play a warforged. I know WHY they made them +0 ECL, but the only reason to go anything else is if you've got a specific feat-centric build in mind and go human.
--fje
Rel
Liquid Awesome
HeapThaumaturgist said:
I don't really agree with this opinion. I think there are lots of reasons not to play a Warforged. Obviously there are tons of reasons not to from a roleplaying standpoint but I think there are several roles in which they are mechanically inferior. For one, Warforged Arcane casters take an ASF penalty for the Warforged's armor. For other builds their stat modifications might prove inferior to other races. They don't qualify for Dragonmarks, make poor Druids and are not terribly stealthy.
I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
The lesson I've learned?
+8 Str != 4 levels of fighter.
+8 Str, +4 Con, 4d8 hp, and two feats != 4 levels of fighter
I don't know what DOES equal 4 levels of fighter...or cleric, wizard, rogue, paladin, ninja, Communist Bombmaker PrC or whatever.
+8 Str != 4 levels of fighter.
+8 Str, +4 Con, 4d8 hp, and two feats != 4 levels of fighter
I don't know what DOES equal 4 levels of fighter...or cleric, wizard, rogue, paladin, ninja, Communist Bombmaker PrC or whatever.
painandgreed
First Post
Another thing I noticed about ECL races while making up a 100th level character for the heck of it due to other threads. It would also come into account anytime that the character advbanced beyond 20th level. The racial ECL penalty would count against their Character Level and thus limit their BAB and Save advancement. Once a character hits 20th level, they no longer get any BAB or save according to class and instead get an epic bonus. This mainly means that any ECl class fighter character may miss out on aditional attacks due to high BAB.
A mindflayer who picks up 3 levels of Wizard, a level of rogue and then a level of cleric will never be able to get the Improved Critical Feat even if he picks up another 20 levels of fighter because his BAB will be permanently limited at +7. The same would happen for a half-feind mindflayer with 20 levels in fighter since he would only get a BAB for his hit dice and that 1st level of fighter.
A mindflayer who picks up 3 levels of Wizard, a level of rogue and then a level of cleric will never be able to get the Improved Critical Feat even if he picks up another 20 levels of fighter because his BAB will be permanently limited at +7. The same would happen for a half-feind mindflayer with 20 levels in fighter since he would only get a BAB for his hit dice and that 1st level of fighter.
jmucchiello
Hero
It doesn't fail to penalize LA-adjusted races at the lowest levels. It merely fails to penalize them ENOUGH for you at lowest levels. I'd still not play a LA+1 race who was penalized worse than my system. Maybe for you must multiply the penalty by 2 or 3 or 5.seankreynolds said:
Turning this around: When should LA +1 race achieve 50% or better parity with an LA +0 race? If you use my numbers it happens at level 2 (of the LA+0 character). If you multiply by 2, it happens at level 4. Multiply by 3 and it happens around level 6. How long must the hobgoblin suffer for his +2/+2 ability scores?
If you say that at 10th level an LA +1 race is allowed to have parity with an LA +0 race 50% of the time, than the penalty should be 5,000 xp. Perhap a new chart is needed and my reliance on the XP Chart was just hopeful optimism. But a multiplication factor is always a possibility.
If you can say with confidence when parity is balanced, then the chart can be reverse engineered by simply finding what 50% of that level's cost is. Make sense?
HeapThaumaturgist
First Post
Rel said:
Why are they not stealthy? They take no penalty to Dex or Int and are IMMUNE to most traps, bar direct-damage. They start with leather armor, which they can upgrade to a mithril breastplate at 1st level for free, and upgrade from there later. They'll lose out on feat-power, but will be superior in terms of armor (including a free Light Fortification) and immunity to poison, gas, nausea, etc while losing NO class levels (and thus not losing out on Evasion, Sneak Attack damage, and the like). Max out tumble and they'd make a fine fine melee rogue.
They would make poor druids and clerics, unless it was a multi-class battle cleric, where I could use the superior armor and immunities to once again out-weight the stat penalties. What really nerfs both of those classes for warforged is the Artificer, whose spell (infusion) list reads like a cleric list for Warforged ... alot of self-buffs and then arcane curing. The same arcane curing makes warforged wizards attractive ... but Artificer pulls alot of the power of Wizard off of wizard and does it BETTER. Artificer beats the snot out of Sorcerer every day of the week, and Sorcerer was already far behind the Wizard in terms of power. A wizard not afraid to spend a little XP (and in the stretch of things, VERY little XP) will out-Sorc a Sorc with items every day of the week. Artificer does that, and does it better.
Warforged and Artificer are, I think, quite flavorful, but they interact with the system in such a way as to take A WHOLE LOT away from the core races, both arcane core classes, AND the divine casters.
--fje
Similar Threads
