Need some perspective on ECL

[spunky_mutters]

I realize that the CRs are "lower" than they actually are. The problem is that if you use SS to tell you what CR a +ECL race/Classed monster is, you won't get anywhere near what you'll get if you calculate CR as Monster Level + Class level.

The aforementiond Shadow/Rog5 would be level 15, and so a CR 15 by the standard 1 level = 1 CR, but would be CR8 by the SS definition of CR. But my problem isn't as much with CR (and while I think Upper Krust's system most likely has merit (although I haven't really gone over the fine print of it) I don't want to have to redo CR for everything just to get in the right ballpark, and I don't think his system addresses the problem I am having here, which is...), it's that by having level = CR in one instance, but not with regard to +ECL races levelled as pcs/npcs, they are removing the mechanic from usefulness in the situations where you have pcs/npcs in this situation.

But now you've got me thinking about that and I'll go look at UK's system to see if it leads me out of my dilemma. I've got my own ideas about how CR should be calculated, but as I mentioned previously, it's the interaction between CR and ECL that is bothering me.

 

[kreynolds]

I realize that the CRs are "lower" than they actually are. The problem is that if you use SS to tell you what CR a +ECL race/Classed monster is, you won't get anywhere near what you'll get if you calculate CR as Monster Level + Class level.

Nah. The problem is that you simply need to toss SS right out the window. The only thing worth much of anything in that book is the demonstrations of acid testing. As a general guide, it's cool. As a precise system, it sucks. I.E., throw it out, but keep the general info in mind, as it is somewhat useful.

...while I think Upper Krust's system most likely has merit (although I haven't really gone over the fine print of it) I don't want to have to redo CR for everything just to get in the right ballpark...

Here's the thing though...you have to redo all the CRs anyway. Because monster CRs are already lowered to account for an uneven encounter, you still have to determine the monster's true CR. It's unavoidable. With that said, UKs system doesn't require you to do anything more than you would normally have to anyways. It gives the real CR. That's the biggest thing you need to get your ECL.

...I don't think his system addresses the problem I am having here, which is...), it's that by having level = CR in one instance, but not with regard to +ECL races levelled as pcs/npcs, they are removing the mechanic from usefulness in the situations where you have pcs/npcs in this situation.

I'm not sure I'm understanding you here.

But now you've got me thinking about that and I'll go look at UK's system to see if it leads me out of my dilemma.

To be honest, there's no reason it shouldn't. It will definately do most of the hard work for you.

...it's the interaction between CR and ECL that is bothering me.

Oh, it certainly bothers me too, but that's why I use UK's system to determine CR. It tends to give far more accurate results anyway. I've already used it several times and it seems to be quite solid, and given that it's still in development, that's pretty impressive in my book.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

There is a reason that they only use advantages when calculating ECL. When 3e came out, the designers commented that one of the main goals of 3e was to avoid balancing a combat advantage with a role playing disadvantage. It seems that almost every player who wanted to power game was more than willing to trade +2 to hit and damage for the disadvantage that people wanted to attack him more than the rest of the group. I tested this once in 2e using skills and powers. My friend made up a character who was rude, abrasive, ugly, partially psychotic, and also twice as powerful as the rest of the party combined.

Back then I believed that a role playing disadvantage was worth balancing it out. I told him, "Alright, you want to do that, you realize you won't be able to go almost ANYWHERE without starting a fight." He didn't care. So, the beginning of the adventure they were in the inn and he managed to get a 6th level fighter angry at him and challenged him to a duel. They were 1st. He managed to kill the 6th level fighter in a single round. I assumed the guards were all around level 2-4 in the town. They all came because there was a murder, and wouldn't believe him because of his disadvantages. He single handedly took on 5 3rd level characters by himself.

At about that time, I decided not to run the game anymore because I had failed to prove my point of teaching players that role playing disadvantages were actually disadvantages.

The same thing happened with a lot of kits in 2e. The Thief swashbuckler comes to mind. It gave you the attack bonus of a fighter, in exchange you had the disadvantage of "trouble seems to find you." Which I had only ever maybe once see a DM use. Most DMs had written an adventure which didn't leave much room for trouble looking specifically for the swashbuckler.

Parties always find a way around any disadvantages of certain members. Normally to the detriment of the adventure. Have a giant party member who gets attacked in towns? Then the party won't go into towns and will avoid accepting missions that require them to. Can't speak? Make a form of sign language that the party understands. Can't pick up things? Be a wizard for mage hand. Or if all else fails, pester the DM to allow you magic items that get rid if your disadvantages, hats of disguise, amulets of shrinking, ghost touch equipment, amulets of "solidification" or something else.

Don't forget the one thing, that GP value is for character level not class level, so a stone giant that happens to have only one class level and is 15th level should have the gold of a 15th level character. This means that they are a giant who likely carries around a +5 weapon, +5 armor, and a +6 strength enhancing item, making him significantly more powerful than a normal stone giant.

 

[spunky_mutters]

Majoru:

He may be way better than a normal (CR8) Stone Giant, but I think he's nowhere near the 18 levels he had to spend to get to be a fully mature stone giant. Even with items , an 18th level fighter can take him out pretty handily. I recognize that role-playing disadvantages are not the best thing to balance mechanical advantages, so I think you need to make players understand the mechanical disadvantages of taking a particular character. The giant is pretty easy to hit, lacks the feats or class skills that others of that level would have, and is definitely a prime target.

The shadow/rog5 is very vulnerable to many things that adventuring parties use against undead. At level 3 shadows may be tough to fight, but at level 15, that 3d12 + 5d6 (40ish on average) is going to see him go down on simple attacks from those who can hit him (almost anyone at that level), and that's not even considering spells or turning. The system does not seem to be balanced with combat in mind, and so I think it is futile to try and use it figure out combat encounters.

kreynolds:

UK's system is almost there. Under ECL he double counts fast healing and regeneration. This is a small thing, but it's the same fundamental problem that Savage Species has (and the whole concept of ECL when it doesn't match CR).

When matching up combats, you use level to determine the player's strengh. You use CR to determine the monster's. If you score them both differently for the same things then you can't compare them. If fast healing and regeneration are worth that extra cost to PCs, they're worth it to monsters. Otherwise you create an imbalance on one side of the scale. As I said, UK's system only has a small difference, whlie the WotC system is pretty much all difference.

That said, I think UK's system is way more complex than what is needed. I don't think things need to be as granular as he makes them. I don't believe that the extra complexity really adds to the system. I have an idea about how I will handle CR if I find I just can't make things work, but I won't go into it until I decide if I'm talking out of my burro.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

CR can never equal ECL. I do agree that some CRs may be incorrect, and some of the ECLs may be as well. Change them if they seem wrong. It also IS a disadvantage to have so many less HP than the rest of the party, for sure.

However, if you are a shadow, you are essentially taking 50% or less damage than the rest of the party due to being incorporeal.

Having fast healing or regeneration is MUCH more valuable for PCs because it essentially negates the need for healing between combats. Most mosters don't survive the combat they are in, so it is mostly inconsequential.

And, since CR, being that whole "against 4 opponents" thing means that one on one a CR 8 creature should be able to take out a level 8 character with no problem. So, if the monster is going to be ONE of the 4 characters, it has to be less powerful.

There is a reason though that Stone Giant and Shadow are both listed on the advanced monster races list. They are creatures that are hard to work into a game due to overpowering abilities and a ECL that outstrips their hitpoints making it dangerous for a PC to play. I haven't allowed any of these in a game yet, but if any player chose them, I'd use the ECL and warn the player that they are much more likely to die in exchange for all the powers they want.

 

[ThirdWizard]

CR = ability considering only one battle for purposes of EXPERIENCE given to 4 PCs
ECL = ability considering the relative power of that PC in relation to other PCs

Those are two very different things. Take the fast healing example. CR doesn't measure how much fast healing is worth to a monster. It helps measures how hard it makes it for a group of 4 PCs to take it down. Now put that in context for a PCs. That PC is now going to be at full health at almost every encounter you throw at it, plus it will be healing while the battle is going on! It doesn't make the PC all that much harder for the monsters to kill, but it does mean that the PC has more liklihood of surviving many encounters.

Think about it.

 

[spunky_mutters]

Most of these comments deal with the reasons for ECL and CR to be the way they are. I'm still waiting for someone to tackle the issue of trying to balance combats when you have high ECL race PCs? Majoru and Thirdwizard are not incorrect in their claims, and when I first read SS I managed to convince myself that things would work. Now I am trying to see how they will work.

I do understand how CR and ECL work, and how CR is supposed to represent a certain level of challenge when compared to a 4 person party CR-equal level. The DMG says that you can calculate CR to be equal to NPC character level, though. This should mean that two characters of equal character level would be equivalent CR. It should not mean that a Shadow/Rog5 would be a CR8 monster using the CR + level method, and a 15th level character using the level = CR method.

The comparison I make between the stone giant and the 18th level fighter is because these two are equivalent character level by the SS rules.

I do believe ECL should equal CR. If real character level = CR, so should the ECL for a race. The fact that certain abilities will skew things in certain directions just means you need to be very careful about allowing them. They've basically opened the door up for everything that you could think of trying, it's up to you as a DM to decide what you actually want in your game.

Majoru: A CR 8 creature should not necessarily take out a level 8 character one-on-one. It should be a 50-50 fight (most likely decided by the details of the particular matchup). What's the CR for an 8th level fighter?

Thirdwizard: I know I'm repeating myself, but I'm afraid I'm not making my point clearly enough. As long as ECL is part of character level, and character level is directly equated to CR for all that CR is used for, any inequality in how they are calculated damages that system. If I am going to rely heavily on +ECL races with class levels as villains, I am going to need to balance things out some other way, because the system as provided makes no attempt to do this.

 

[ThirdWizard]

It's because the system wasn't designed with monsterous PCs in mind; it was an afterthought. You have to give them credit, though, for the vast improvement they did on allowing monsters to advance, though. That is one of the best improvements for 3E that was made, IMO.

All that aside, when designing an enemy, don't worry so much about ECL. If you want a Stone Giant Fighter 5, then make him, without worrying too much that technically he's an epic level character. I know its a cop out, but its really the best way to work with what you're given. Give him equal equipment for a Stone Giant, maybe plus what a Fighter 5 would have, or perhaps give him what a level 13 fighter would have.

ECLs shouldn't affect how you make NPCs.

The problem is that monsters weren't designed around the concpet of a PC being one, they were designed to be cool and interesting, and a shadow being CR 3 has no bearing on how powerful that shadow would be as a PC, they just weren't thinking of it. So the monster has several "high level" abilities with "low level" power.

This makes him almost impossible to allow as a PC race, he's either going to be overpowered or underpowered, with very little in between. Thus, the designers put ECL on the side of caution. I have to agree with this, much better to have less powerful PCs than to have another way for PCs to get more powerful (for example, the Half-ogre in the back should be ECL +2, oops...).

Yes, its odd that you could have a group of 20th level stone giants fight a group of 20th level humans, and the humans wouldn't get any XP for the stone giants. The game is not perfect by a long shot in that regard.

A general rule of thumb is the higher the ECL on something, the less powerful it is for its ECL. It simply has to be like this because of the way the game is set up, otherwise you get a lot of overpowered monsterous options that can possibly destroy normal gameplay. Reworking that would have to be built into a whole new edition I think, and really I don't think it will ever be resolved or monsters will get a lot more boring.

 

[spunky_mutters]

I'm doing a game soon that will see a party of mostly core races alternating play with/and competing with a party of monstrous races. I plan on allowing new characters to play greater +ECL races as the average party level advances (It will be a mostly open game with many players rotating in and out. I also expect a fairly high turnover (read casualty rate)). It was in planning for this game that I came to the conclusion that I was going to be in trouble if I followed things exactly as laid out in SS.

I appreciate all of the feedback everyone has given me, but I'm still feeling the same way I was before. That is to say I feel that I'm going to have to do some fiddling to ensure that players stay competitive without being overpowered, as I don't trust the balance of the system provided.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Actually, the answer is in the math. A CR X creature should be able to use up 20% of the resources of a party with average level X. This means either 20% of one characters hit points, or spells, or items, etc. or 20% of the total HP of the party.

So, if a character can each do 25% or the enemies HP in the time it takes the enemy to do 20% of theirs, then it reasons that a PC would be able do 20% of a party's HP before he dies.

I can see your point though...you don't think ECL should include non-combat stuff. That it should only be a rating of effectiveness in combat.