Need some perspective on ECL

[kreynolds]

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).

That's the problem I have with it as well, so I just ignore it. Hasn't posed a problem yet.

That said, I think UK's system is way more complex than what is needed.

It's actually quite easy, and the complexity can be quickly removed. I'll see if I can get the time to explain that later on today.

 

[Spatula]

I do believe ECL should equal CR. If real character level = CR, so should the ECL for a race.

So an ogre (CR 2) with 1 level of barbarian would be a 3rd level character? (CR + PC levels) +10 STR, +5 natural armor, 4 monster HD, increased movement, Large size, plus the 1st level barbarian benefits (more movement, rage)... How is a 3rd level half-orc barbarian supposed to compete with that?

CRs and ECLs aren't an exact science. CRs especially. You seem to be placing a lot of importance on the PC level = CR thing, but I think that that is there as a quick approximation (along with NPC level - 1 = CR). An approximation of an approximation. It's close enough to what the reality might be without creating a messy, complex system. Is a lone 2nd level fighter really as dangerous in a fight as an ogre? Is a 20th level commoner really a CR 19 opponent?

If you want to play a monster campaign and you feel the ECLs in SS are too high, nudge them downwards until things look better in your eyes. Arbitrarily setting ECL to CR is just going to send the powergamers in your group looking for the lowest CR-to-power ratio they can find.

 

[spunky_mutters]

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.

Majoru: 20% of 1 of 4 character's resources is only 5% of total party resources (for a 4 person party). I'm pretty sure it should be more challenging than that.

The only reason that I think CR and ECL should be equal is that the sole purpose of CR is to compare it to party level (of which ECL may play a large part as it will in an upcoming game of mine) to determine challenge level and XP derived from an encounter (I'm ignoring EL in this discussion as it's purely derived from CR). If the two do not measure the same thing, they cannot be compared on a 1-1 basis, as WotC claims that they can (and the way that CR X means a 20% challenge for a 4 person party is not part of my problem with the interaction between CR and ECL, it's just a function of how level power scales in 3e).

 

[spunky_mutters]

Spatula:

You are correct. That's the conclusion I have come to. I'm only placing importance on the level=CR thing because it will be important for me when trying to match high +ECL race PCs against core race PCs at different times during my upcoming game. It is the mechanic provided, and I recognize that it is an approximation. I just feel it is a poor one. That's why I came to the conclusion that I'm going to have to do my own calc's to get something I am comfortable with.

 

[Lord Vangarel]

I'm currently running a game with Minotaurs, which according to SS are ECL 8. When I looked at what SS said about adding one class to the monster and comparing to a like class I decided that a Minotaur Fighter 1 was noway equivalent to a Fighter 9 or Barbarian 9 so I dropped the ECL to 4, a figure I thought more appropriate. This was purely guesswork and looked at combat or racial abilities to determine the figure. I think I'll continue to do this for all monsters with levels in the future as, like others have said, I don't believe SS has got it entirely correct.

As a final note I think after playing for a while, Minotaurs should probably be ECL 5 or maybe 6, but certainly not 8.

 

[kreynolds]

So an ogre (CR 2) with 1 level of barbarian would be a 3rd level character?

That depends...PC CR or NPC CR? There's a difference. According to the core rules, an ogre (CR 2) with 1 level of barbarian would have two different CRs, one as a PC and one as an NPC/monster. The former would be higher than the latter.

 

[Spatula]

That depends...PC CR or NPC CR? There's a difference. According to the core rules, an ogre (CR 2) with 1 level of barbarian would have two different CRs, one as a PC and one as an NPC/monster. The former would be higher than the latter.

I was responding to spunky_mutter's statement that ECL should = CR, not asking a core rules question. I know what the CR of an ogre with 1 level of barbarian would be according to the core rules, it's 3. AFAIK the only distinction that the DMG makes between PC and NPC CR is in relation to having either PC or NPC class levels. But I've never read the DMG from cover to cover, so I could be wrong.

 

[Spatula]

That's why I came to the conclusion that I'm going to have to do my own calc's to get something I am comfortable with.

You might want to take a look at Soldarin's ECL calculator: http://soldarin.tripod.com/rpgpages/id5.html

 

[Grog]

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.

Make up two 18th level characters and run this combat. The results may surprise you.

Be sure the giant gets a point buy equal to that of the fighter, and give them both the standard GP value for magic items in the DMG. Also, make sure the stone giant uses feats and tactics that take full advantage of his size and strength - he should take Improved Trip and trip the hell out of the fighter, for instance. He also shouldn't let the fighter get a full round attack on him, since the fighter will have 4 attacks to his 2.

Keep in mind that a PC stone giant could have a strength of 44(18 starting, +16 racial, +4 level increases, +6 item). That's a pretty huge advantage that a standard race character couldn't get.

 

[spunky_mutters]

Okay, maybe I didn't think that through completely. I don't have time to go through a few different scenarios of fighter vs. giant, but yes, the giant is tough. He as other weaknesses that are balanced in the fighter, though. The giant's atrocious will save means he's a big liability for his party unless he spends some resources balancing that out. This goes back to the general problem of allowing races not balanced for play. The DM needs to let players know what they're in for. If you just let players enjoy the powers of these forms without suffering the consequences of having certain weaknesses, of course they'll come off as powerful. I don't really want to get into a discussion about specific monsters, though. My problem is with the inconsistency of the method used (as mentioned in previous posts), and how it falls down particularly far in the scenario I am contemplating.

edit: players may be possessive of their characters, but not in a grammatical way.