Lizardfolk = ECL 4?!?!

[Jasperak]

I have only read this thread from the post from David (WOTC R&D) and I think I missed something. Am I too assume that a CR3 Ogre fighter1 is supposed to adventure with a party of 9th level characters and survive?

Now on page 14 of Core Rulebook III under the heading Creatures with character classes, it gives an example of an ogre taking a level of Barbarian to become a 5th level character. Now my question is: Is an ogre with one level of a character class equal to 3 (based on challange rating found on page 58 in Core rulebook II), 5 (based on Core rulebook III), or 9 (based on this article in Dragon)?

The next question I have is if a DM told everyone to make 9th level characters and everyone took Ogre as their race. What EL would make a moderate challenge; level 3, 5, 9, or other based on some formula? Would a Very Young Blue Dragon (CR 3, EL 3) be a Challenging encounter? Would a Young Blue Dragon (CR 5, EL 5) be too much, too little, or just about right. What about two Juvenile Blue Dragons (CR 7, EL 9)?

Now I understand that CRs and ECLs are not the same thing but with logic like this how does a DM determine the ELs to put the party up against if they have a one of these monstrosities in their party.

One rule to rule them all is it?

Don't get me wrong, I love 3e, but rule conflicts like this kill me. No wonder why third party pubs cannot get CRs for their monsters right. Somebody please do some number crunching and find the answer. As for me, I have to roll up two Juvenile Blue dragons to face a real 9th level party.

 

[Spatula]

Jasperak, a monster's CR does not have any bearing whatsoever here. CR is a rough guide of the challenge that a monster will offer a balanced party, and is almost always less than or equal to the monster's HD. ECL is a rough guide as to how many character levels a monster's abilities are worth, and is almost always greater than or equal to the monter's HD.

It's a shame that D&D finally has decent rules for monster characters when the designers seem bent on making the option as unattractive as possible.

 

[Wolfspider]

It's a shame that D&D finally has decent rules for monster characters when the designers seem bent on making the option as unattractive as possible.

Now, this may be too harsh. I'm sure the designers are doing their best to make a quality supplement.

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. That would be working at a cross purpose. DMs buying the book have already decided that they think playing monsters is valid; they don't need such warnings.

Eh, I don't think I'm making any sense. My daughter is here next to me talking about Shrek and Pocahontas. Surely an unholy pair if there ever was one--a human druid and an ogre barbarian!

 

[thundershot]

Personally I agree with the Half-dragon being +4 (face it, it is just better than half-celestial).

Actually, Half-Celestial and Half-Fiend got bumped to +5. I had to adjust one of the character's sheets. (That, and the half-dragon)

Though... I'm a nice DM. I just figured out how much XP they earned since starting, and added that to what they would start with using the new ECL, and there's the XP total. I'm not going to penalize levels that were earned... They'll just have to swap that character out for an adventure or two with another one, so the others can catch up in level. (In my campaign, each player has a "character pool" of 2-4 PC's to choose from for each adventure. It gives everyone some variety.)


Chris

 

[Axiomatic Unicorn]

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. That would be working at a cross purpose. DMs buying the book have already decided that they think playing monsters is valid; they don't need such warnings.

Agreed, but I think you may be forgetting about the other players. If the DM and you both think a lizardfolk is fine, then cool. But if your lizardfolk is more fun than everyone else's standard characters, then they have been screwed.

If you and the DM tweak the official rules to be less conservative, that is fine. But if the players who want to play "normal" characters are forced to tweak the official rules just to stay in the game, that sucks.

In other words, to err on the side of making monster chars a little to weak will do virtual no harm and is easy to house rule. Whereas to err on the side of making them to strong could be disruptive to all the other players.

If you were a DM, which scenario would you prefer to be in:

A: "Hey, I know the official rules say that lizardfolk are +4 ECL, but everyone likes your character idea, so +3 ECL is fine for this game."

or

B: "Look, I understand that the official rules are +3 ECL for lizardfolk, but everyone else feel like you've got the cool character are they are just sidekicks. I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to bump you to +4ECL. "

As a DM myself, I would greatly prefer that the official rules leave me some slack to give away to a character than have them be pushed to the limit and possibly force me to take something away. If it was +3ECL and wasn't working, I would probably find myself just saying "OK, no lizardfolk, sorry"

 

[Wolfspider]

Good point, Axiomatic Unicorn. I certainly don't want to cause other players to enjoy the game less because of my oddball druid.

By the way, what's an Axiomatic Unicorn?

 

[Wolfspider]

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?

 

[thundershot]

Axiomatic is a "lawful" template in the Manual of the Planes book. Variant creatures that dwell in the lawful outer planes. The example in the book is Axiomatic Bulette. It's really sleek looking with shiny silver plates...


Chris

 

[Axiomatic Unicorn]

The axiomatic template is from the Manual of the Planes. It is to creatures from lawful planes what the celestial template is to creatures from the good planes.

They are described as perfect versions of the creature.

To me the idea of a perfect version of a creature that is already supposed to be basically perfect sounded cool. Plus I found a picture of a metallic, idealized unicorn that WAS my avatar. If you click on my profile you can still see the picture.

BTW, if you were in my game, I would be easy to talk into a +3 ECL. I am a pushover for characters who will play a concept.

 

[thundershot]

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?

Probably +2.

Just don't forget to get rid of the skill points and such for those two hit dice...


Chris