Point Buy Variant: Level Adjustment Variant

[Dragonblade275]

Plausibly, a balanced +1 LA race would be one of the standard races, but with +2 racial bonuses to two or three ability scores. If characters assign the racial bonuses carefully, they're using them to maximize their point-values -- improving good scores to even better ones. So they're likely using one racial bonus to boost a 16 to an 18 (worth +6 points) and could be treated as using the others to boost 14's to 16's (worth +4 points each). That's +14 points. I'd scale this down to 11 or 12 points, because a +2 to three ability scores is probably a bit too much, and because racial bonuses are usually not quite assigned as optimally.

Thus, if 25 points is worth LA +0, I'd say a good first pass would be to peg 36 points at LA +1. I'd do 48 points for LA +2, and not make any higher LA's an option, because the tradeoff becomes increasingly unbalanced.

Hi, Comrade Raoul. Thanks for the input.

After giving this more thought, I tend to agree with Nyaricus (above) who said that my level adjustments were too high. Here's why:

The raw adjustment between the standard array and the elite array is +9 to the raw scores. This equates to +10 points to the point buy value. However, higher scores cost more. Then there's the point also raised by Nyaricus that a simple increase in ability scores does not always equal the benefits of a level gain in a class. So, a first level fighter with +9 to raw ability scores on top of the elite array wouldn't necessarily equal a second level fighter (though, s/he would probably be close to the capability of a second level character). Furthermore, moving from the default array to the elite array still leaves room to add a class level without incurring a level adjustment. So, +9 to raw scores is not enough to justify a +1 level adjustment by itself, it seems.

So, without going too much farther, I'm probably looking at the difference being +12 to raw scores per level adjustment. So, the elite array could be increased from

15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8 to

17, 16, 15, 14, 12, 10

for a +1 level adjustment. This increase amounts to 43 points for the point buy method for a +1 level adjustment. Continuing this way, a +2 level adjustment would now be 69 points. And, 105 points for a +3 level adjustment (which from the input so far, might be too far to allow).

Thoughts/Comments?

 

[Dragonblade275]

Welcome to the boards, Dragonblade.

Thanks, Michael.

I think you've got a pretty good idea, there (and one I may be gaffling for my own upcoming campaign).

Good! I hope it works well for you. Let me know how it goes, if you can, and what points per level adjustment you use.

Like others, I'd be wary of allowing the players to slap too many LA's onto their characters, and would probably limit it to +2 LA to be taken in this manner.

I tend to agree, Michael. After giving it some more thought, too many level adjustments could be a bad thing.

I have some questions, also. Are you going to allow the characters to have +LA races, as well?

I try to avoid allowing those, but I've got one player who would love to play a minitaur or an ogre or something else big that would have a level adjustment. But, we're going to be using the races from Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved for the first time and the giants and the races that can gain levels will probably be enough for us, for now.

And, if so... What ECL are you thinking of starting the campaign at?

Haven't decided but no higher than 5th.

Also, it seems that you are talking about having the characters' ECLs start off being unequal (for instance, if one guy opts to use the 25 pt. buy, he'll be starting at level one and if another goes with the 32 pt. buy, he'll be level 2). Is that right? I'm not sure that I like the idea of charcaters starting off at different levels, though I don't suppose that it's considerably different than having characters end up being different levels due to character death, experience point expenditure, or other circumstances. Lower level characters will eventually catch up, after all.

Yes, lower level characters should eventually catch up. And, lower level characters are supposed to get more experience for the same encounter than a higher level character (if I understand the rules correctly). So, they whould eventually even out at the same ECL. (Note: I did change the ranges, so 43 would be a +1 level adjustement instead of 32.)

As far as you numbers go... I'd probably go 25 points for +0, 34 points for +1 and 42 points for +2. As I mentioned earlier, I don't think going more than +2 LA is a very good idea, although problems with LA can be mitigated by simply starting the characters off at a slightly higher level (so that they have some hit dice to go along with those levels).

I agree.

Later
silver

Thanks for the post!

 

[Dragonblade275]

House rule from the current "Design & Development" article...

Thanks for posting those links, Dagredhel! I liked those ideas.

One could also treat the stat increase as equivalent to a feat, and allow the player to choose between the two. Players who lust after high ability scores could devote all or most of their choices to stat increase, while players who choose feats instead will have more options available to them or excel at certain tasks.

I agree with this idea. Letting the players substitute ability score increases for feats and vice versa is a good idea.

I'm in agreement with the comment below:

Thus, if 25 points is worth LA +0, I'd say a good first pass would be to peg 36 points at LA +1. I'd do 48 points for LA +2, and not make any higher LA's an option, because the tradeoff becomes increasingly unbalanced.

But this could be combined with options for further stat boosts with level advancement, which I think would work out better in the long run as compared to the higher level adjustments.

Interesting...

 

[Dragonblade275]

I keep the scaling point-buy system and give an increasing number of extra points every level. (Ranges from 25 points at 1st to 85 at 20th.) I cap the ability scores to 18 + 1/4th character level to imitate the bonus point every fourth level; characters can choose to either focus on two ability scores or to spread their points out more evenly, as they prefer.

I've been thinking about keeping the point buy for ability score increases at higher levels, too. Instead of saying that a character gets +1 to any stat at every fourth level, why not award them 1 or more points every level?

Conan uses the standard +1 to one ability every 4th level, but also adds +1 to all abilities at 6th and every 4th level after that. I'd probably go with every 6th level, instead, simply to keep a regular progression.

I've seen a few other systems, but none I can remember off-hand.

Thanks for the post!

 

[knight_isa]

I've been thinking about keeping the point buy for ability score increases at higher levels, too. Instead of saying that a character gets +1 to any stat at every fourth level, why not award them 1 or more points every level?Thanks for the post!

Someone suggested something like this a few months back, and I'm doing this in a current campaign. Instead of the +1 to any stat every four levels, a character gets +1 point buy at every new level and +1 point buy every fourth level. This gives 24 points over 19 levels (ending at 20th), which is enough to raise a starting 18 to 23, just like core. It's a lot more flexible for those who would rather spread it around, though. It's working out really well.

 

[Dimwhit]

My thought is that the LA from the OP is way high. I played two characters that I rolled up using the original Master Tools from 3.0: A rogue (I rolled a 72 point set of stats for him) and a Druid (I rolled a 63 point set of stats for him). They had some seriously kickin' stats. Didn't really make them any tougher than the rest of the party (granted, they weren't at 25 point buy, but they were way below me). The high stats had advantages, but they were anything but unbalancing. And for the record, the Rogue was played to 19th level, and the Druid is actually still in play (after a 3.5 conversion) at 15th level.

If I were to assign an LA for them, I'd maybe go with +1. But I found they really didn't have any major advantage when it all played out.

That's just my experience, though.

 

[Dragonblade275]

Someone suggested something like this a few months back, and I'm doing this in a current campaign. Instead of the +1 to any stat every four levels, a character gets +1 point buy at every new level and +1 point buy every fourth level. This gives 24 points over 19 levels (ending at 20th), which is enough to raise a starting 18 to 23, just like core. It's a lot more flexible for those who would rather spread it around, though. It's working out really well.

I actually like this idea quite well, Knight Isa. One reason is that I can see it encouraging players to raise their PC's lower scores rather than their higher scores. The only drawback for some might be in determining the point buy value for scores over 18.

 

[Dragonblade275]

My thought is that the LA from the OP is way high.

I (the OP) agree.

I played two characters that I rolled up using the original Master Tools from 3.0: A rogue (I rolled a 72 point set of stats for him) and a Druid (I rolled a 63 point set of stats for him). They had some seriously kickin' stats. Didn't really make them any tougher than the rest of the party (granted, they weren't at 25 point buy, but they were way below me). The high stats had advantages, but they were anything but unbalancing. And for the record, the Rogue was played to 19th level, and the Druid is actually still in play (after a 3.5 conversion) at 15th level.

If I were to assign an LA for them, I'd maybe go with +1. But I found they really didn't have any major advantage when it all played out.

That's just my experience, though.

The breakdown I'm really considering using, now, would put your Druid as a +1 LA and your rogue at a +2 LA (though just barely).

+0 < 43
+1 >= 43
+2 >= 69
+3 >= 105

105 would be about the level of scores that might have been expected in the old Dark Sun campaign setting (which, if I remember correctly, allowed scores up to 24).

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

The only drawback for some might be in determining the point buy value for scores over 18.

It's simple. 8-14 are 1 point each; 15-16 are 2 each; 17-18 are 3 each.

Every odd score, the cost per point of attribute increases by one build point.

19-20 are 4 each-- 20 and 24 total.
21-22 are 5 each-- 29 and 34 total.
23-24 are 6 each-- 40 and 46 total.