Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Jeff Wilder" data-source="post: 4746395" data-attributes="member: 5122">The concept suffered, IMO, from two factors:First, the desire to be conservative when opening up a whole new area of the rules.Two, the fact that when LA and ECL were created, character optimization wasn't as well-known or rampant as it is now, and nor were there as many character options.&nbsp; (In other words, a hill giant probably matched up more evenly against a fighter created in 2004 than one created in 2008.)FWIW, there are a few examples of LA being botched the other way.&nbsp; For example, arguably the half-ogre was over-powered at +1 LA.&nbsp; (Though as the player of one, I think it's under-powered at +2 LA, so dunno what the fix is there.&nbsp; Well, actually, we used the UA fix, which worked fine.)The single most ridiculous example, IMO, is the whisper gnome from Races of Stone.&nbsp; +0 LA and demonstrably and objectively leaps and bounds ahead of every other +0 LA race.&nbsp; That one's gotta be a typo, but it was never errataed.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Jeff Wilder, post: 4746395, member: 5122"] The concept suffered, IMO, from two factors: First, the desire to be conservative when opening up a whole new area of the rules. Two, the fact that when LA and ECL were created, character optimization wasn't as well-known or rampant as it is now, and nor were there as many character options. (In other words, a hill giant probably matched up more evenly against a fighter created in 2004 than one created in 2008.) FWIW, there are a few examples of LA being botched the other way. For example, arguably the half-ogre was over-powered at +1 LA. (Though as the player of one, I think it's [I]under-powered[/I] at +2 LA, so dunno what the fix is there. Well, actually, we used the UA fix, which worked fine.) The single most ridiculous example, IMO, is the whisper gnome from [I]Races of Stone[/I]. +0 LA and demonstrably and objectively leaps and bounds ahead of every other +0 LA race. That one's gotta be a typo, but it was never errataed. [/QUOTE]

Verification