Lizardfolk = ECL 4?!?!

[Wolfspider]

It doesn't matter what the books say, those are just a basis for your game, the DM could change the ECL if he wants to. If he wants to make it an ECL of +6 to discourage anyone from taking it as a character he can, or if he wants to change it to a +1 he can do that to.

Yes, very true, but what if I decide to bring Sedek the 10th level lizardfolk druid into another campaign? What if the DM there decided to go exactly "by the book" instead of by reason? Then suddenly Sedek loses another couple levels, something that will seriously underpower him. Of course, such is a DM's prerogative, but, still, it is an annoyance.

I just hate it when I see an inconsistency that I just know in my heart of hearts is going to make it into the final book.

 

[SpikeyFreak]

For the record, I agree that the ECL is based on the race's best-fit-class, and it has to be that way if they are going to keep things (relatively) balanced.

As a DM though, I would consider lowering it (to +2 ECL) if a player wanted to play a sub-optimanl combination, like a druid lizardfolk, since the extra strength and hit points aren't as helpful as they would be for a barbarian, ranger or fighter.

Yeah, the lizard folk having druid for their favored class, not being an overly powerful druidic race AND being +4 ECL seems kinda inconsistent, but I don't see any other way to do it.

As for moving it to another DM's game, sorry, I guess you're SOL.

--Helpless Spikey

 

[Wolfspider]

As for moving it to another DM's game, sorry, I guess you're SOL.

*shakes scaly fist at the heavens in defiance*

 

[War Golem]

Ogres at ECL +8?

Hi folks,

I got my copy of Dragon yesterday, and looked over all the monster ECLs. My first, and still lingering, impression is that the numbers seemed awfully high across the board.

I've been reading this whole thread, and I fully understand the difference between what a monster's CR represents versus its ECL..... but I'm still at a loss as to how a 2HD Ogre can be an ECL +8. Yes, they're Large and strong, but 8 levels worth just struck me as a bit much.

Certainly be interested in what everyone thinks, about the ogre or any of the other monsters, now that the group has pretty well picked apart the lizardfolk and half-dragon ECLs.

And as for the comment about WotC artificially inflating the monster ECLs simply to discourage players from using monster characters - I'm not debating whether that is true or not, because I really don't know, but if it's true, what the hell is the point of publishing this article and the forthcoming Tooth & Claw in the first place? Seems to demonstrate an appalling lack of game-design judgement.

Cheers.

 

[reapersaurus]

Couple things:
1) Wolfspider - i TOTALLY feel for you, and completely understand your approach, and i agree that it is a BIG mistake by WotC.

2) Why is this considered official?
FRCS is NOT an official source to use in our campaign.
Neither is Dragon magazine.
Why should anyone who is 'playing by the core rules' have to change, for example, a Hobgoblin to +1, a half-dragon to +4, or a lizardman to +4?

 

[Wolfspider]

Good point, reapersaurus. Nobody has to abandon the core way of doing things to accept these new rules.

But if new rules ARE going to be published, I'd like them to be the best they can be. It's hardly profitable or sensible to create a new set of rules that are inferior to the old ones.

I also immediately thought that the ogre's ECL of +8 was ridiculous. When I get home and have some time, I'll break down the numbers and analyze them a bit to see if my first impression about the ogre's ECL is right.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Reaper - you have good points, but do remember that the system in the DMG isn't nearly as good as the system in the FRCS - no term for ECL, wealth is messed up, XP based on total HD rather than ECL, etc.

 

[War Golem]

I also immediately thought that the ogre's ECL of +8 was ridiculous. When I get home and have some time, I'll break down the numbers and analyze them a bit to see if my first impression about the ogre's ECL is right.

Hi Wolfspider,

I'm looking forward to your analysis. Thanks for taking the time.

 

[Grendel]

Ogres have 4 HD

The game wasn't designed around monsterous races and not alot of time was spent balancing monsterous races with standard races.

An oger at +5 ECL is quite a bargain. A first level fighter/ogre is easily as powerful as a 6th level human fighter, and maybe more so.

Now scale it up and find out at what point a human fighter is better than an ogre this is the breaking point and where the monsterous races should be set (to encourage players to take the "heroic" standard races).

I suspect under further investigation the game designers discovered that an ogre with 10' reach (20' with reach weapon) +10 STR (possibly a 28 str, that is +9 attack, +13 damage with a 2hd weapon), 5 points of natural armor (in addition to normal armor benefits), and massive bonuses to grapple and trip; was equatable to a 7th or 8th level fighter and then added an additional level to the ECL to make the standard races more appealing.

If you want to encourage you players to play monsterous races reduce the ECLS 1 or 2 point

If you are a player who wants to play a monsters race, then think of the other players, who will enjoy the game that much less when being forced to (litterally) walk in your shadow.

 

[Marshall]

I really doubt any thought was put into these ECLs. I mean a fricken DOG is ECL 3.
If I want to play a LICH I'm ECL 3
If I want to play a SKELETON I'm ECL 5

Oh yeah, Lots of intensive study.

Grendel, Youre making the same mistake Redman did.
You havent looked at the penalties for playing a large race. Aside from the combat aspects, you'll have trouble finding places to sleep every night, finding equipment that fits, avoiding the angry mobs chasing the hideous monster, getting a mount...Shall we continue?