Need some perspective on ECL

[Grog]

One thing to keep in mind: if a creatures final ECL is more than double it's final number of HD, it will be VERY vulnerable to damage in combat.

Well, the increased Con scores of many monsters usually make up for this.

The real problem comes when facing level-draining undead (or Eneveration). Three hits from a vampire will kill a troll (ECL 11, 6 HD), while an 11th level fighter would still be alive.

On the flip side, the troll can take a lot more Str and Con damage than a human fighter could.

 

[spunky_mutters]

That's right. Monster players need to be mindful of their weaknesses and use their resources to offset them. Otherwise it may seem like the DM is picking on them if he uses spells/monsters that would normally be a challenge to a core-race, but are right in the monster's weak spots.

 

[Grog]

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.

Well, his will save will be a couple points worse than a fighter's (+4 vs. +6 base, isn't it?). But really, any effect requiring a will save that will give the giant problems will probably give a human fighter of equivalent level problems too.

The stone giant's Large size might present more problems. If the PCs have to go into a confined space, they'll probably have to polymorph the giant into a smaller form, which would make him lose a great many of his advantages (since I don't think a Reduce spell would be able to shrink him a whole size category).

Of course the giant has disadvantages. But he's also as strong as a Great Red Wyrm, for pity's sake.

 

[kreynolds]

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.

I know, but I was responding to your response.

Anyways, according to the core rules, the CR of your ogre would depend upon whether or not it is a PC. A PC ogre has a higher ECL than an NPC ogre's CR, and at the same time, the PC ogre's CR is also higher than the NPC ogre's CR. The DMG uses equivalent levels to illustrate the difference in power between a monster and a PC as the same monster. Basically, my beef with the core rules in this regard is that they are just sloppy, and way too arbitrary. About half the ECL values I've broken down for monstrous player races that already have ECL values have been off by at least one point, and some have been off far more than others.

 

[Spatula]

kreynolds, I'm sorry but I don't really understand a good chunk of what you wrote there.

About half the ECL values I've broken down for monstrous player races that already have ECL values have been off by at least one point, and some have been off far more than others.

Broken down how? And which ECL values?

 

[Coredump]

kreynolds and others,
While reading UK's system, keep in mind that he isn't giving the 'true' CR; he has redefined CR. What he calls and what WotC calles CR are not the same thing.


Spunky,
CR CANNOT equal ECL. It just doesn't make sense. Being able to heal in 15 minutes is only a small advantage to a monster, since they won't live more than one combat. But it would be a HUGE benefit to a PC that is in many many combats.
Same with strength, it will only help a monster for 5-15 attacks or so. But it will help a PC for hundreds of attacks.
CR = how tough will you be to beat in one combat
ECL = how much better will you be over a course of many levels.

Now, this is not to say the ECL numbers are perfect....

 

[spunky_mutters]

I don't think people are understanding what I am saying, so I'm going to try and state it a little differently.

The reason that I say CR has to equal ECL (the only reason), is that the method provided for determing CR for classed npcs/monsters explicitly makes this assumption (in that it assumes CR = character level). If they are not equal (and the whole point of my starting this thread is that I can see they are not equal and I am trying to figure out how to deal with that with regard to high ECL races who are explicitly given a CR in one instance that is nowhere near their ECL based CR).

I can only assume that my explanatory abilities are sadly lacking, because out of all of the responses I have received, only a couple of people seem to understand what I am talking about.

To everyone else: I can appreciate, and probably even agree with your views, but they don't help me to solve my problem.

I believe that everywhere where I stated ECL = CR, I explained that I was stating this because it is a side effect of the level = CR statement in the DMG. I'm not saying I think it is balanced, or that I think it provides a solution. I think that if ECL is not supposed to equal CR, than character level shouldn't equal CR. If that's the case then I need a workaround for determing CR (or conversely ECL, whichever I choose to change) for high +ECL races (things aren't as bad with low ECL races).

I think as long as you allow monstrous races as PCs, you will always have to keep a list of abilities you don't want players to use, just like you would with magic items, spells, or anything non-core (and most DMs even have core stuff they don't use). There are balance issues with everything, but taking all of the monsters (who are, as pointed out by many, balanced for a single combat challenge) and allowing players access is just another balancing challenge for the DM. I believe the ECL system is not designed with combat balance in mind. It tries to balance a monster's abilities for the campaign, and the result is that it becomes unsuitable for calculating CR for combat scenarios. This is what I am seeking help with.

I am still evaluating UK's system for my needs, but I'm doing a fair bit of travel right now, so I don't have the luxury of sitting down with my books (and computer) and testing things.

Thank you to all who replied.

 

[melkoriii]

I don't think people are understanding what I am saying, so I'm going to try and state it a little differently.

The reason that I say CR has to equal ECL (the only reason), is that the method provided for determing CR for classed npcs/monsters explicitly makes this assumption (in that it assumes CR = character level). If they are not equal (and the whole point of my starting this thread is that I can see they are not equal and I am trying to figure out how to deal with that with regard to high ECL races who are explicitly given a CR in one instance that is nowhere near their ECL based CR).

I can only assume that my explanatory abilities are sadly lacking, because out of all of the responses I have received, only a couple of people seem to understand what I am talking about.

To everyone else: I can appreciate, and probably even agree with your views, but they don't help me to solve my problem.

I believe that everywhere where I stated ECL = CR, I explained that I was stating this because it is a side effect of the level = CR statement in the DMG. I'm not saying I think it is balanced, or that I think it provides a solution. I think that if ECL is not supposed to equal CR, than character level shouldn't equal CR. If that's the case then I need a workaround for determing CR (or conversely ECL, whichever I choose to change) for high +ECL races (things aren't as bad with low ECL races).

I think as long as you allow monstrous races as PCs, you will always have to keep a list of abilities you don't want players to use, just like you would with magic items, spells, or anything non-core (and most DMs even have core stuff they don't use). There are balance issues with everything, but taking all of the monsters (who are, as pointed out by many, balanced for a single combat challenge) and allowing players access is just another balancing challenge for the DM. I believe the ECL system is not designed with combat balance in mind. It tries to balance a monster's abilities for the campaign, and the result is that it becomes unsuitable for calculating CR for combat scenarios. This is what I am seeking help with.

I am still evaluating UK's system for my needs, but I'm doing a fair bit of travel right now, so I don't have the luxury of sitting down with my books (and computer) and testing things.

Thank you to all who replied.

Hmmmm looks like you dont understand what CR is.

CR != ECL flat out.

They are like apples and Oranges.

One is to tell you how much of a challange a mob will be for a party of 4.

The other is to balence all the advantages a PC would get from being that Race.


If you can see this then Im sorry.

Quit wile your ahead and stop restateing your misconceptions.

Take waht other here have said and move on.

 

[gariig]

The biggest problem you seem to have is...CR and ECL are totally different mechanics. You are trying to equate attack rolls and skill rolls. They are similar mechanics at a very high level, but once you get into the meat and potatos of it, they are different. A CR and a CR+Class Levels is based on the fact they will live for one encounter. That is it, that is all. Nothing more. ECL and ECL+Racial HD is based on the fact that they can and will live for more than on encounter. So, something like having fast healing for a CR is just mediocre, you will live one round more. Now, for ECL healing 100 HPs in minutes is a HUGE boon. Every cleric dreams off this, but if you can heal like that you definitely are more powerful then an elf.

Now, as far as letting ECL classes into a party there is a problem. Someone had a good rule of thumb, ECL can't be more than half your Class levels+Racial HD. If you have a +10 ECL(with no racial HD) creature fighter 1 play with your level 10 party, he WILL die the first encounter. An ECL 5(with no racial HD) could be a fighter 5 and probably survive and have fun.

Also, you do realize that creatures like the stone giant are broken down into ECL and Racial HD? So, a stone giant has 14 HD of Giant levels and a +4 ECL? If you play as a stone giant fighter 1 you have 14d8+1d10 HP, feats from 15 HD(6 feats plus one fighter bonus), skills, a good fort save, plus stone giant special abilities(which are negligible, except HIGH STR and reach).

Gariig

 

[BenjaminB]

You know, this is a hard one with D&D. The game has always been very anti-monster-PC. With something like Mutants & Masterminds, this is really easy to do. You just build the monster with points. Under D&D, its a tricky one.

I have to say, the listed ECL's seem way too high- especialy where ECL is significantly greater than actual HD. There needs to be some kind of absolute cap on this- like no more than 50% more ECL than HD or something. I don't know. Some monsters just don't convert well to PC status. What it really comes down to is getting your GM to work it out with you. Converting monsters to special classes is also a really good option here, and one which I think works better all around. As is, the rules are a mess and I wouldn't use them.