How should ECL and monster races be handled?

[bret]

The discussion in the Lizardman ECL thread made me start thinking about how the rules for playing monsters as characters should work.

Some of the things I came up with include:

• The first monster HD should be replaced by a class HD. This is the way it works for the PHB races (which only have one HD).
• Base ECL would often be lower than base HD. The base monsters are more like Commoners than any of the regular PC classes, and you can end up loosing too much BAB, hit points, or skill points from a multiple HD creature if you consider HD = base ECL.
• Skill points need to be handled better. I wonder if it would be that bad to replace the amount gained from one Extra Hit Die with what is gained from the class. If you don't adjust things, classes like the Rogue and Bard become a lot less interesting just because of the skill point loss over what would have been gained for the quadruple skills at first level.
• There should be a guideline for total adjusted attributes. I would guess that a +2 and maybe +4 is worth an ECL, but am not sure where it becomes worth +2 or +3 ECL.
• Playtest definately needs to be done at several effective levels. It is probably OK if the character is underpowered when taking their first class level, provided they don't stay that way. It would be unacceptable if they ended up overpowered over the long run. Seems like at a minimum you would have to test at ECL+1, ECL+3, ECL 10, ECL 15 and ECL 20. You don't want to characters to be so weak at ECL+3 or ECL 10 as to be useless, yet need to prevent them from becoming overpowering at ECL 15, 20 and above.
• Immunities and resistences are probably worth more at higher levels than the starting levels. Doesn't matter what character level you are, getting the resistences given by a Celestrial template is always great. This is especially true since these abilities can't be dispelled. The number of different immunities/resistences is probably more significant than the amount of each.

Anyone else have suggestions?

 

[kreynolds]

I don't know that you need to go to all the trouble of figuring this out. WotC is writing Tooth & Claw right now. Unlike Dragon Magazine, who just did some math on monsters and didn't bother playtesting to see if their ECL results were correct, WotC IS playtesting it. I'm sure they will do a better job. They tend to do really well with the ECLs. Just take a look at the first print of FRCS. Nearly all the ECLs they list towards the back were changed in the FRCS Errata. So, at least they went back and fixed it. That tells me they did at least some playtesting.

 

[Wolfspider]

I don't know that you need to go to all the trouble of figuring this out. WotC is writing Tooth & Claw right now. Unlike Dragon Magazine, who just did some math on monsters and didn't bother playtesting to see if their ECL results were correct, WotC IS playtesting it.

I got the impression that the figures in the Dragon magazine were pretty much taken from the current draft of the Tooth and Claw book. One of the contributors from the book posted on the lizardfolk thread and pretty much defended the ECL given there, so I think we're going to have to work with those numbers. If they're not official, then they're just inches away from such status.

 

[kreynolds]

If that article was sanctioned by wizards, then that is definately not good news. Man.

 

[Wolfspider]

If that article was sanctioned by wizards, then that is definately not good news. Man.

Well, I don't know if "sanctioned" is the right word. Some material in Dragon is official, like errata and sage advice. Since Dragon is the "house organ" for WotC (is that term even used anymore), then I would think that articles published in would be near-official (but completely optional, of course, like any non-core suppliments). That being said, I think the material they are considering changes to it since they asked for input.

 

[bret]

I don't know that you need to go to all the trouble of figuring this out. WotC is writing Tooth & Claw right now. Unlike Dragon Magazine, who just did some math on monsters and didn't bother playtesting to see if their ECL results were correct, WotC IS playtesting it. I'm sure they will do a better job. They tend to do really well with the ECLs. Just take a look at the first print of FRCS. Nearly all the ECLs they list towards the back were changed in the FRCS Errata. So, at least they went back and fixed it. That tells me they did at least some playtesting.

If their playtesting is going to prevent all the problems, then why is it that the FRCS had to errata all of the ECLs?

Trust in the playtest. The errata will fix all the problems it missed.