Lizardfolk = ECL 4?!?!

[Axiomatic Unicorn]

So, let me ask again, since I'm curious and it might provide a good option: What would the ECL of a lizardfolk be if the critter didn't have those pesky extra hit dice?

That is an interesting question:

A race with:

+2 STR +2 CON -2 INT
+5 Nat AC
claw/claw/bite (option of multiattack but not automatic without the HD to give you a feat)
+4 swim, jump and balance

I would probably go +2. (But don't hold me to that)

To me +5 nat is probably worth +1 and them some.
Two +2 phys stats for one -2 mental stat is worth about another +1

Natural attacks and skill bonuses are not as good as a standard ECL 0 race bonuses, but I would call it a wash the leftover credit from the natural armor thrown in.

Certainly a little better than I would accept as +1 and not good enough for +3.

 

[Jasperak]

Spatula, I must disaggree. CRs have everything to do with this discussion (at least in a round-about way). If you take for example a party of four ogres, each have one level in any character class, what creatures would one use to create an encounter level that was Challenging, i.e. equal to the level of the party? My current thinking is that the Ogre fighter1 in a 9th level party, would not be able to pull his weight. Considering a 3rd or 4th level party would make mince meat of a Ogre or 2nd level Fighter.

I have written a program (in True Basic no doubt) that I have been using to compare fighting styles, i.e. One handed with shield, two weapons, and two handed weapons. I tweaked it to compare an Ogre fighter1 to serveral different level fighters. What I have found with ~.2% error, that a 4th level fighter will kill an Ogre fighter1 49.5% of the time. and the Ogre victorious 49.6% of the time run over 100,000 combats. I would think that this would make the Ogre's ECL around +4, maybe +5 because I could not code for reach which would be an advantage.

IMHO, we have two systems for determining power levels for comparison. One level in a character class adds +1 to its CR, meaning a human fighter1 has a CR of 1, while an ogre fighter1 has a CR of 3, but this article is trying to say that the ogre fighter1 equals a fighter9 CR 9. Who is still confused?

BTW, I found that taking a base 4th level fighter and comparing with various styles, that a Fig4 fighting with two shortswords will beat a Fig4 with longsword and shield 60.2% of the time. A Fig4 with a greatsword will beat the base Fig4 64.9% of the time and a Fig4 wielding a longsword and shortsword will beat the base Fig4 67.6% of the time. And for all you Drizzt fans, a Fig4 with longsword and shortsword will beat the Greatsword wielding Fig4 55.0% of the time. AC seems to mean poo-poo against single opponents.

Anyway, our 9th level party of ogres will get stuffed by a Juvenile Blue Dragon in a heartbeat. Let alone the two that would be needed to make an EL of 9. Those magic missles from our 1st level wizard ogre mean nothing. The dragons will have 142 hps each, I think more than the whole party of ogres. Not a fireball between any of the ogres. Not even an invisibility. Woops mister Ogre fig1, roll a reflex save and beat DC 20 or take 36 points of damage. You only have 36hp and you haven't been hit yet. "S" to be you, should have been a HUMAN. I guess that is the point anyway.

I am just looking at the sheer mechanics and I can make a case for Ogre ECLs of +3, +4, or maybe even +5 but +8, Whatever.

 

[Jasperak]

I understand that they (WOTC R&D) are trying to add new options to the game, which I think is great. Unfortunatly the way they are going to manipulate one to not play a monster character is a slap in the face to all they have done before. Why give a Dwarf the ability to cast magic missle, if you are going to penalize a character just because he/she isn't a core race. Oh you are a Lizardperson, well you don't get to use this chart for experience, you use the one with extra zeros on it.

How about this WOTC, make a system that is balanced with itself. Don't do a DMs job for him. If a DM does not want an Ogre in the party, don't allow it. DMs have a great responsibility to their players to create a good game and put his/her foot down. So does WOTC. Don't give me a broken game supplement because you don't want monster characters to take over a game. Some penalty would be fine, but a somewhat arbitrary number as the sole balancing factor? Give me a balanced system and let the DMs decide. Don't decide for us.

I think I shall start a new group... M.A.D. :<
Monsters Against Discrimination
No more will the 9th level Ogres Fighter1 be cannon fodder for those pesky little humans in their quest to slay mighty dragons. Rise, Rise up against your oppressors! ECL4, ECL4, ECL4!

 

[Axiomatic Unicorn]

It has been well estbalished that CR and ECL are not at all related.

Many things may give a limited bonus within a single encounter, but be much better for an ongoing game.

For instance, regeneration or fast healing. These keep the monster around for a couple extra rounds (maybe) so it gets a slight boost in CR. But give one to a PC who survives the fight and then completely heals, that is a much bigger bonus.

Having a variety of spell-like abilties is another example, because a monster will only get to use a couple in a normal encounter.

Flying....

Even the Ogre's super high STR gives a PC more advantage is many situations, where it only adds to combat ability when fighting against them.


Add to that the FACT that the CR/EL system is a total dog anyway and any reason to try to base ECLs on it goes ompletely out the window. I do not think your examples prove that CRs are applicable to ECL. They prove that CRs are not applicable to anything, including level advancement.

 

[Jasperak]

Axiomatic Unicorn, I understand your point about the difference in abilities over the course of a battle and over the course of an adventuring career. I too have a problem with the CR/EL system, but it is what we have and something we must work with or 3e will fall into the same trap that 2e did. If one does not work with the established system, then the whole system falls and becomes unbalanced, i.e. the 2e Complete Handbook series.

This is why CRs do matter in this situation no matter how bad it is. Every rule here needs to work with each other. Take for instance a balanced party of 4 Ogres with one character level. What CR creature/s would pose an Easy, Challenging, Very Difficult, or Overpowering Encounter.

I do not presume to base ECLs on CRs, but they do have a place. The same things that create CRs should affect the ECLs in similar ways. Is anyone trying to say that a Str bonus of +8,+12 whatever, reach, and 4 hit dice is worth the 10 feats a fighter is going to get by 9th level?

 

[Axiomatic Unicorn]

Axiomatic Unicorn, I understand your point about the difference in abilities over the course of a battle and over the course of an adventuring career. I too have a problem with the CR/EL system, but it is what we have and something we must work with or 3e will fall into the same trap that 2e did. If one does not work with the established system, then the whole system falls and becomes unbalanced, i.e. the 2e Complete Handbook series.

Actually, we do not at all have to work with it. I tried it, tried tweaking it, then canned it. I give XP purely based on my experience with what is a challenge to the party and how fast I want them to advance.

This is why CRs do matter in this situation no matter how bad it is. Every rule here needs to work with each other. Take for instance a balanced party of 4 Ogres with one character level. What CR creature/s would pose an Easy, Challenging, Very Difficult, or Overpowering Encounter.

The CR rules do not work on their own. How are they going to work with other rules?

But let's pretend for the moment that it does work. In that case 1 Ogre fighter 1 would be an appropriate challange in a fight for 4 level 3 characters. It does not AT ALL follow from there that an Ogre Fighter 1 would simply fit in with a party of otherwise normal 3rd level characters. He would outshine them by a mile.

And remember, this is assuming an average ogre. And Ogre PC gets a +10 STR, which can then be put on top of a base 16 or 18. Having a character with STR 28 before magic items will be very unbalancing at any level much below 9.

Then add in +4 CON for -2 DEX and you are seriously tough. Who cares about Int and Chr penalties with this concept?

Now add reach and a +5 natural armor.

Does that mean that an Ogre Fighter 1 is as good as a human fighter 9? No.

Does it mean that it is unfair to the human to try to force him to shine against this guy at any lower level? Yes.

If you want to play an ogre, accept the fairness to the other players. Otherwise, play the human.

I do not presume to base ECLs on CRs, but they do have a place. The same things that create CRs should affect the ECLs in similar ways. Is anyone trying to say that a Str bonus of +8,+12 whatever, reach, and 4 hit dice is worth the 10 feats a fighter is going to get by 9th level? [/B]

Just because A is used to determine both B and C, it does not follow that B and C are related.

Give me a STR 28 ogre with a huge Greatsword for 2d8+13 damage before ANY magic or feats then give me the same amount of magic gear as your character. You will start wondering when will anyone ever notice your little human.

Now if you let me run a 32 point human while you run an ogre with stats straight out of the MM, I will give you about 3 ECL back. But that is not the assumption used in the Dragon ECLs.

 

[drnuncheon]

I have written a program (in True Basic no doubt) that I have been using to compare fighting styles, i.e. One handed with shield, two weapons, and two handed weapons. I tweaked it to compare an Ogre fighter1 to serveral different level fighters. What I have found with ~.2% error, that a 4th level fighter will kill an Ogre fighter1 49.5% of the time. and the Ogre victorious 49.6% of the time run over 100,000 combats. I would think that this would make the Ogre's ECL around +4, maybe +5 because I could not code for reach which would be an advantage.

So in other words your program simulates two guys starting within 5' of each other and hacking away with no thought to tactics, and it further handicaps the ogre by removing one of his big advantages. You'll forgive me if I don't exactly think that that's a fair test!

What stats did you use for the ogre, and for the fighter? Did you give the ogre the same stats as the fighter modified for race, or did you just use the stats from the MM? If you did the latter, you removed another huge advantage - it's the equivalent of a human fighter having all 10s and 11s.

If you don't look at the advantages of a racial choice, of *course* they're going to seem weak. That's a big "well, DUH!".

What happens when the ogre grapples the fighter? All of a sudden the ogre's got +14 to his checks, and is dealing 1d4+7 damage per round, and the fighter can't use his sword anymore...

What happens when he uses his great strength advantage to trip the fighter?

What happens, in short, when a clever player plays to the race's strengths instead of standing 5' away from an opponent and hacking at him?

J

 

[Spatula]

That being said, I think that they are erring too conservatively, making sure the ECLs are high enough to cover every ounce of power a race might have without considering the fun factor. Playing monsters is a different kind of experience, a strange one that can be quite enjoyable. (I know I've enjoyed the heck out of my lizardfolk druid, good ol' Sedek.) If you're going to publish a book on playing monsters, I don't think you should discourage people to play them at all.

Well, that's the sense I get when I see things like ogre as a +8 race. I think ogres work pretty well as +5, and if you wanted to be cautious maybe a +6. But +8? At that point the ogre won't be able to fufill the one role that it should be good for - melee combat - because it won't have enough hit points. A 9th level core-race warrior is actually better in every respect than a 1st level ogre, aside from reach. If the ogre isn't actually a fighter-type, the comparison is even less favorable.

I think that monster PCs are already pretty limited. Monster HD are universally worse than character HD in all areas; the only case when they might be a benefit is for the low-HP classes like wizard, but in those cases you're trading off considerable spell power. In order to get whatever special abilities granted by the monster race, you give up a lot as it is without artificially inflating the ECL modifier.

 

[Archer]

Most monster HD really are worth 1/2 ECL. If they get 2 favored saves and full BAB progression then they are worth almost a whole ECL. If you have 9 monster HD that's -2 attributes and -4 feats plus you get no class abilities or skills for those HD. You have to have some pretty good monster powers or attribute bonuses just to break even with everything you lose. You only have +6 BAB so you need +6 Strength just to break even and you need +2 Con to break even on hp and you need another +2 to make up for lost attribute increases. Now you need something to make up for the 4 lost feats plus the 5 feats you would have had as a fighter. Usually the strength bonuses and armor bonuses are pretty massive, which brings up the ECL but not every race does.

Since everyone talks about ogres, lets compare an ogre to a half orc (the closest base race comparison)

Base ogre is going to have +8 str, -2 dex, +4 con, -2 wis, -2 cha in comparison for stats, plus large size and +5 natural armor. 31 hp avg. (-1 to hit and AC for large)

A level 4 half orc fighter will have +1 BAB, 28 hp avg (-3), -1 fort save, +1 ref, +1 will, +4 feats (exo weap, focus, spec in bastard sword, great fortitude) would give a net +1 fort save, -1 net attack bonus and -3.5 avg damage (vs greatsword). Lets assume the 1/2 orc had an 13 strength instead of a 12 and raise that to a 14 at 4th level, then that reduces the difference in damage to -2.5 with an equal chance to hit and -4 AC compared to the ogre.

Are +2.5 damage, +4 AC, +3 HP worth 4 ECL especially since the ogre is already effectively -1 to all saves?

Not exactly but being large is worth a lot because the first feat to take is Large and in Charge and the 2nd is combat reflexes. Those 2 feats make the ogre much stronger. PC ogres will surely get Dex up to around 20 with magic items making it very hard for medium creatures to engage the ogre in melee. It has to be assumed that any large character will take those 2 feats with their first class level. Work up to improved shield bash (2 more feats) and ogre can really shine and usng a spiked chain (one handed for an ogre) in addition is just staggering (1 more feat). Without spring attack any single medium opponent would be unlikely to ever get off a melee attack and even a large one would be challenged. If you don't maximize the power of the ogre then he will obviously be far far behind because of his ECL. The only weaknesses (and one as huge as the melee advantage) are ranged attacks and spells with a save other than fortitude.

The disadvantage with 8 ECL is the the ogre has much worse saves, attack and HP (about half across the board) compared to a fighter of the same level. If you figure a wizard has 14 con and the ogre has 19 then the wizard will have 41 hp to the ogre's 39. the same BAB, more skills and and 4,3,6 saves to the ogres 8,0,1 (figuring 14 con and everything else 10's) plus 5 more feats oh and the wizard has 8 caster levels to the ogre's zero.

The fine line is how much of a penalty to saves and hp and feats equal the benefit of being large and being slightly better at combat.

PS The reason why CR and ECL don't match up because CR is with no equipment and ECL includes a truckload of gear and gear is half the power of a character.

 

[Ketjak]

ECL - Never

Originally from my campaign mailing list, then Monte's board. He *really* wants to post it here, but he's having account problems.

- Ketjak

+ + +
From: Alexander West

Briefly, why I would never play a character with ECL:

A character with ECL is bad at first level, and gets worse at higher levels. Lets take the ECL + 1 Aasimar as an example. For <current level +1> x 1000 XP penalty, you get fire, cold, and acid resistance 5, light once a day, two +2 abilities, and two +2 skills. Let's compare this to a Hobgoblin, which is ECL + 0. The Hobgoblin gets one +4
skill, and two +2 stats. The +4 skill of the Hobgoblin should cancel out the Aasimar's two +2 skills, and the two +2 abilities should also cancel each other out. This means that the Aasimar is paying the ECL XP penalty for 3 resistances at 5, and light once a day.

An item that gives resistance 15 is arguably of about the same value as three resistances at 5. This effect is generated by an item such as a Ring of Minor Elemental Resistance, which is worth 16,000 GP. Light once a day on an item would cost <spell level x caster level x 400 gp>. Since it is a 0 level spell, (and thus counts as spell level 1/2), this comes to being a 200 GP item. Now, just for argument, let's call both of these items slotless. That means we double their value, for a total of 32,400 GP. Sweet eh?

For 1000 XP, 12,500 GP can be generated using any item creation feat. At first level, an Aasimar is effectively 2,000 XP behind his compatriots. This would be worth 25,000 GP of magic items. Comparing this to the 32,400 GP value of Aasimar itmes, we see that at this level the Aasimar is ahead of the game. At level two, the same Aasimar is now 3,000 XP behind his companions. This could be expended for 37,500 GP worth of items. At every level after this, the scenario just gets worse and worse. (+12,500 GP being added to the value of the character with the item creation feat burning XP for magic items.)

So, say, at 4th level, (ECL 5), the Aasimar has earned 15,000 XP. Another character in the party is 4th level, and has made 5,000 XP of magic items. (77,500 GP value.) This party member has more value in magical stuff, (which is also probably more useful stuff), and is still gaining XP as a 4th level character instead of the Aasimar who is gaining XP as a 5th level character. Who would you rather have in your party? Who would you rather be?
[Bonus Paragraph: For 70,000 GP, a PC could buy an SR 19 item, according to the price guide in the DMG. An ECL 5 character with SR of <11 +level> would only have SR 15. What kind of moron plays an ECL Drow or Svirfneblin? Escpecially since ECL 2 or 3 means that you are paying more than 25,000 or 37,5000 x ECL for your race.]

If you happen to think Hobgoblins are an unreasonable comparison, lets just compare the Aasimar to the Human baseline. Let's call the human bonus skill points equivalent to a +2 intelligence for non-wizards. Let's say the bonus feat for humans is equal to the two skills at +2, (such as Alertness though, we all know the feat is way better than two
skills at +2. This would mean that the Aasimar has a +2 ability over the human. Though I think it would be a totally unreasonable over-costing, let's just assign this benefit the cost of buying two wishes for a +2 inherent bonus, which is about 52,000 GP. This would give the Aasimar a total of 89,500 GP. By the time he hit ECL 9, the non-ECL
character would be way ahead of him again. The aasimar wouldn't really be ahead before this either. Due to the exponents involved in the costs of magic items, a PC could be equipped with an array of awesome items for this price. No one would waste money on buying two wishes at this level!

Now, not every character is going to want to buy an item creation feat, but we should see that the ECL is a grossly flawed and overcosted system. The DMG method is somewhat better, but through testing seems to come out a little undercosted, and has oddly variable costs for races depending on what level you start at. [An Aasimar costs 2,000 XP if your starting level is 2, but 10,000 XP if your starting level is 10.] The only way that really makes sense is just to assign an XP cost to buying any given racial package - just like every other character enhancing item.
+ + +