• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

New ECL/LA System

Infiniti2000

First Post
I really don't like the existing ECL/LA system. Are there any alternatives for D&D? I'm not interesting in alternative systems, so please don't tell me to just switch out of D&D because it won't happen. :)

Here's my thoughts. Keep the LA. But, change ECL from being HD+LA+CL to LA+CL+(CR for the HD as if improved). The table for this last part is taken from the table in the Improving Monsters section of the SRD.
CR/HD Table said:
Aberration, construct, elemental, fey, giant, humanoid, ooze, plant, undead, vermin: +1 per 4 HD
Animal, magical beast, monstrous humanoid: +1 per 3 HD
Dragon, outsider: +1 per 2 HD
Any other modifiers to CR not account for in the original LA (such as size increase for advancement) would be directly added in. Templates have their own LA, so those would be added in and any HD increase for the template would be added in as per the above.

Pros
  1. Monster ECL is not overinflated due to the poor monster HD in relation to class levels. Note that none of the monster types have +1 CR per HD so their clearly not 1-to-1. This is the biggest flaw I'm trying to correct.
  2. Because the ECL is not inflated, this makes it easier to play these creatures.
  3. Previously very high ECL monsters have a better survivability. Another significant drawback to taking ECL hits are the fewer HD and worse survivability. With this system, the base monster HD no longer has as much of an impact, allowing you to gain more class levels and thus HP, saves, etc.
  4. Allows advanced monsters to be more easily played. Previously, it would be a very poor choice to play an advanced monster due to the huge HD penalty. Now, it's possible and probably reasonable due to the addition of the CR for improving monsters.

Cons
  1. Not playtested. There's a reasonable possibility that there are some broken combos using this system -- in other words just the right creature with high HD and low LA, where the LA took into account the HD somewhat. In such cases, the DM may need to adjust the LA.
  2. There's still not a 1-to-1 ratio for CR to ECL. I don't see a way to resolve that, though. Maybe the CR system is just not a very good one. The problem this causes is that though a high ECL/low CR monster is playable and possibly balanced overall, when it comes down to survivability, he still might have a serious disadvantage.
  3. If the HD is not evenly divisible by the divisor in the table, you will either have an ECL too high or too low.

Edit: Add Con #3.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

smootrk

First Post
It is certainly a good step in the right direction. I always thought the Gnoll or a Centaur character would be great but the goofy ECL calculation nixed those ideas. Your adaptation along with revised monster levels (based on CR) might make combos like that a bit more plausible.
 

Infiniti2000

First Post
Thanks, smootrk. :)

Here's an example. I want to let one of the players run a dragon in a pseudo-one shot (call it a two-shot, perhaps, but the character becomes part of the campaign otherwise). Let's say I choose a young brass dragon. Without class levels, per the original system, the ECL is 14 (10HD +4LA). Per my system, the ECL is 9 (10HD/2 + 4LA). The CR of the dragon is 6. Does anyone think that a CR6 monster in an encounter level 14 fight would stand a chance or even have much of an impact? The dragon would only be worth minimum XP for the opponent! One CR less and his impact becomes totally irrelevant!

Any comments or criticisms are appreciated.
 

Mark_Aurel

First Post
Infiniti2000 said:
Thanks, smootrk. :)

Here's an example. I want to let one of the players run a dragon in a pseudo-one shot (call it a two-shot, perhaps, but the character becomes part of the campaign otherwise). Let's say I choose a young brass dragon. Without class levels, per the original system, the ECL is 14 (10HD +4LA). Per my system, the ECL is 9 (10HD/2 + 4LA). The CR of the dragon is 6. Does anyone think that a CR6 monster in an encounter level 14 fight would stand a chance or even have much of an impact? The dragon would only be worth minimum XP for the opponent! One CR less and his impact becomes totally irrelevant!

Any comments or criticisms are appreciated.

The original system can certainly be a bit too strict, in that it estimates ECL rather conservatively. The system seems balanced with optimal builds in mind -- which is good from the viewpoint of not allowing overly powerful PCs into a party, but bad from the viewpoint of allowing a player to build a non-optimized monster character and still be able to contribute in a meaningful way to the party.

Now, built into the assumed ECL is the assumption that the character comes with the level of gear that a regular PC of that level does. A CR 6 monster won't contribute much to an encounter against an EL 14 challenge -- but on the other hand, if you take a level 14 fighter and strip him of his gear, he'd probably drop quite a bit in terms of what CR he is as well.

Now, taking your example at hand -- the now ECL 9 dragon is clearly a rather strong choice for a character. He'll have all good saves, a base attack 1 point higher than a fighter of the same level, superior stats to a human fighter of level 9, and some other perks. Granted, he'll be missing out on a lot of feats, but he'll have secondary abilities like flight, a breath weapon (puny though it may be for a 9th-level character), +9 natural armor, the ability to speak with animals, and some very powerful sensory abilities. Plus, he'll have more and better skills than the fighter. So, with the expected equipment, I'd say the young brass dragon is far and away a better choice powerwise than a level 9 human fighter.

Or let's take another example -- the hill giant. It has 12 giant HD (/4, if I read you correctly), and a LA of +4. So you could play it as a 7th-level character. Again, a much superior choice to a 7th-level fighter. Your BAB would beat the 7th-level fighter by +2, and your ability scores in other areas would be far and away extremely superior. +14 Strength? That compensates rather handsomely for the -4 Intelligence and Charisma on its own.

Monster levels are clearly worth less than character levels in _most_ cases. With levels in races such as dragon or outsider, it's borderline, though -- and that on the various base bonuses and skill point progressions alone. In other cases, the monster levels aren't so inferior that you can really afford to give characters multiple monster levels per character level and not end up with something that can very easily get abused and broken.

I would rather suggest allowing LA to be reduced somewhat for inferior monster/character class combinations (maybe using the UA variant for using XP to reduce LA).
 

Infiniti2000

First Post
Thanks for the response, Mark Aurel. :)

Mark_Aurel said:
...but on the other hand, if you take a level 14 fighter and strip him of his gear, he'd probably drop quite a bit in terms of what CR he is as well.
According to Monte Cook, the author of the DMG, it'll be a drop of one CR.

Mark_Aurel said:
I would rather suggest allowing LA to be reduced somewhat for inferior monster/character class combinations (maybe using the UA variant for using XP to reduce LA).
You make some good points. It seems obvious that the the table is probably not the best choice. I'm looking for an alternate to pure HD because it's definitely not on a 1-to-1 ratio with class levels. I was thinking that the LA assumed the important part of the base CR for a particular monster, but clearly not.

Using the hill giant example, we can see he has 12 HD, a LA of +4, and CR of 7. His ECL would be 16. I can't for the life of me agree with that number, it's just plain ridiculous. My initial calculation would have been, as you note, 12/4+4=7, the same as the CR. Well, at least he would (theoretically) have the same impact in a fight. For playing, though, he's clearly stronger, so that can't be right.

One idea would be to go through all of the monster and devise new LA figures to use with my method. That's too much work. The existing LA has to be useful in some way, given the HD and CR of the creature. Can anyone help me with a formula or some advice that would help me create one? Maybe CR+LA? For the hill giant that would be ECL 11. For the young brass dragon, it would be 11.

I don't care how complicated the formula is, either. :)
 

Fieari

Explorer
Infiniti2000 said:
According to Monte Cook, the author of the DMG, it'll be a drop of one CR.

According to U_K, equipment accounts for about 30% of a character's worth, meaning CR or ECL or however you want to put it. So at low levels, yes, about one CR. At high levels, a little bit more. He's tested this pretty extensively, so I believe him. It also seems to make sense to me.
 

Elephant

First Post
smootrk said:
It is certainly a good step in the right direction. I always thought the Gnoll or a Centaur character would be great but the goofy ECL calculation nixed those ideas. Your adaptation along with revised monster levels (based on CR) might make combos like that a bit more plausible.

I played a centaur character once, for about two levels. Game started at level 4, so I had 2 Centaur HD (explained as slowly recovering from poisoning) plus the 2 LA. Even with that caveat, the character was near-broken overpowered for both melee and ranged combat.

HP wasn't much of a problem - ultra-high CON gave enough bonus HP to make up for the lack of HD.
 

Mark_Aurel

First Post
Infiniti2000 said:
According to Monte Cook, the author of the DMG, it'll be a drop of one CR.

Mmmm. CR is a wonky thing. I wouldn't really say a magic equipment-less 14th-level fighter is that much more of a challenge than something like a hill giant or a stone giant. He'd better have a pretty well-built feat selection.

You make some good points. It seems obvious that the the table is probably not the best choice. I'm looking for an alternate to pure HD because it's definitely not on a 1-to-1 ratio with class levels. I was thinking that the LA assumed the important part of the base CR for a particular monster, but clearly not.

CR and LA are not tied together at all. A monster's CR reflects on how much the designer thinks it'll challenge a given and well-balanced party of roughly four characters. LA is supposed to be more of a guesstimation of how powerful the monster is by its level, compared to a character class -- and the comparison is made by an optimal monster build against the class it's got the greatest synergy with. In most cases, this'll be the non-spellcasting classes, as there are very few monsters, if any, with any significant LA that make good primary spellcasters.

What you have to consider is what the HD grants each character or monster. Monster levels vary significantly in quality here.

Take outsider levels as one example: d8 HD, full base attack, all good saves, 8 skill points. Compare that to a rogue or a fighter. Compared to a rogue, you get slightly more hit points, better saves, and a better attack bonus. That's got a value you can easily compare to the value of the rogue's class abilities. Or, compared to a fighter, you get slightly less hit points, but better saves and far more skill points. Again, it's a trade I think isn't necessarily too unfavorable. The most important thing either type of character would lose is a definite party role, as he wouldn't have something definite _to do_ in a fight.

Now, outsider and dragon levels are the best monster levels you can take. Other monster levels are worse -- but never so bad that two of them isn't equal to or better than a typical non-spellcaster class level, when seen from a PC perspective. Undead only gain a wizard-like base attack progression (1 per 2 levels) -- but if they get to advance at a rate of 2 levels for 1, that's equal to a fighter, with better saves, and 2d12 hit points at each level, rather than 1d10+Con.

Using the hill giant example, we can see he has 12 HD, a LA of +4, and CR of 7. His ECL would be 16. I can't for the life of me agree with that number, it's just plain ridiculous. My initial calculation would have been, as you note, 12/4+4=7, the same as the CR. Well, at least he would (theoretically) have the same impact in a fight. For playing, though, he's clearly stronger, so that can't be right.

Take the ECL 16 hill giant and compare to a 16th-level human melee fighter. 12 giant HD yields a base attack bonus of +9. That's about 7 points behind what the human fighter's will be. Incidentally, the hill giant gains a +14 bonus to his Strength score, which gives him a +7 bonus to all melee attacks, above and beyond what the human gets. Of course, he also has a size penalty of -1, but his size also grants him reach and size bonuses to things like grapple or trip checks. He'll also get a +7 bonus on all melee damage rolls above what the human has. Then he'll also have a +8 Constitution bonus which in the long term will be more than making up for his deficit in terms of hit points, and a +9 natural armor bonus, which, while it must be weighed against a -1 size penalty and a -1 relative Dex penalty, still ensures him a high AC against regular attacks (though a sucky touch attack AC, but those will probably hit either character anyway). Weigh all that against the human fighter's advantages, like a higher Int and Cha, more and better feats, and an extra iterative attack or two (but these aren't necessarily _that_ important, depending on how good the odds for hitting with the first attacks are), and I'd say the giant doesn't look that shabby.

The thing to remember about CRs here, again, is that they assume a balanced party. Against a party that consists of only fighter-types, giants are _murder_, and worth a significantly higher CR than if your group includes someone with a few decent Will save effects. Pin a 7th-level fighter in melee against a hill giant, and he'll lose. Make him a few levels higher, and he'll still get smashed.

On the other hand, on the off chance that you wanted to make the world's greatest hill giant wizard, then the LA is clearly a bit high. At least after you've added a few wizard levels.

One idea would be to go through all of the monster and devise new LA figures to use with my method. That's too much work. The existing LA has to be useful in some way, given the HD and CR of the creature. Can anyone help me with a formula or some advice that would help me create one? Maybe CR+LA? For the hill giant that would be ECL 11. For the young brass dragon, it would be 11.

I don't care how complicated the formula is, either. :)

The best 'formula' is probably making trial builds and looking at what the monster levels actually grant you. A good, simple starting point is always to determine whether the monster would have a higher attack bonus (figuring base attack, ability, and maybe size modifiers) than a fighter of the same level. If it does, it's got a fair chance of outshining a fighter of the same level, depending on what its other abilities are. A glass jaw (poor saves of some kind, low hit points for its ECL, some other weakness) will tend to yield a build where you might want to consider lowering the LA very slightly.

Take the hill giant again. At ECL 11, he'll have a much better melee attack bonus than the fighter (by +4; -2 BAB, +7 Str, -1 size). He'll probably have a superior AC, given some form of armor or protection that's more in line with his ECL than what a typical giant gets, courtesy of his natural armor bonus. Each of his attacks will deal far more damage. He'll also have roughly equal or better saves, and more hit points than the fighter. Compared to the fighter, he'll lose out on feats by a big stretch, but he'll have a couple of other advantages to help that out, along with his generally superior stats.

Similar considerations apply to the ECL 11 brass dragon -- it's still got a slightly better melee attack bonus than the fighter, but more importantly, it's got a lot of other perks that makes it a more well-rounded character. Good saves across the board, more skill points, the ability to fly at will granting it a great deal of mobility, and so forth. Within the framework of a party, that's probably worth a little less than being a better specialist, but the value difference isn't worse than that it's worth costing a few additional levels.
 

Remove ads

Top