Quick question about ECL

[kreynolds]

The benefit of receiving character wealth based upon level also carries its own commensurate ECL cost. Every class level includes this small amount to ensure balance. Take a 1st-level PC fighter and a 1st-level NPC fighter. Load them up with the exact same feats, skills, stats, and gear. There's just one problem. You can't load them up with the exact same gear. Why? NPC's don't get as much wealth. Therefore, it is apparent that the wealth included with NPC class levels does not represent an equal amount of each and every class level as it does in the case of a PC. The obvious conclusion is that a 1st-level NPC fighter simply is not equal to a 1st-level PC fighter. Thus, their ECLs are not equal.

If you break down the ECL of a drow, you'll find that it doesn't actually equal a +2 ECL. It's roughly there, but not quite. When you include the factor of gaining two levels worth of character wealth, it brings that value even closer. The drawback, however, is that WotC does not have a system that acurately measures ECL. They simply make up a rough number and acid test it, then raise or lower the total ECL based on said testing. That's it. There are far more accurate systems out there, and when they are used, it shows that wealth in and of itself affects ECL.

Basically, what I'm saying is that it isn't as clear cut as it seems. Apparently, someone noticed the disparity with character wealth and ECL and realized that to not base character wealth on ECL further reduces the power of a character when compared to a straight up classed character of equal level, thus the change in determining character wealth in the FRCS.

 

[dcollins]

Frankly, that post didn't make any sense to me. Comments like "if you break down the ECL of a drow" must be referring to some alternative body of rules which don't exist in the core mechanics. Comparing the ECLs of 1st-level fighters is beside the point, because the whole idea behind ECLs is to measure the non-character-level part of a player character.

If there were a case where "to not base character wealth on ECL further reduces the power of a character when compared to a straight up classed character of equal level", then someone didn't set the ECL right in the first place.

As DMG p. 24 reminds us, the FRCS system also creates contradictions in that the MM ogre apparently has 600 gp on average, but under FRCS an NPC ogre must have 4,300 gp (assuming ECL +5, else more). [Or, I suppose you could argue that NPC monsters don't get NPC money, and then the gradient of difference between PCs and NPCs for monster races wierdly turns out greater than for basic races.]

 

[kreynolds]

Frankly, that post didn't make any sense to me.

I don't think I can make it any more clear. Either you get ECL or you don't. If you are comfortable building monsters and classes, ECL is easy. It just takes practice.

Comments like "if you break down the ECL of a drow" must be referring to some alternative body of rules which don't exist in the core mechanics.

Not necessarily. Common sense is another method you can use to break down a creature's ECL. Just compare it to the classes and see where it's power falls. "Alternate" rules, however, could be those in Savage Species, those created by Soldarin, or even those in the works by UK. No matter what you use, common sense wins out in the end. Savage Species is about as official as it gets, yet you still have to use common sense, hence the acid tests.

Simply because it is not found in the core books does not mean a thing. Your personal webpage does not apply here at all. DMs are encouraged to create their own monsters, classes, etc, yet there are no hard and fast guidelines or rules in the core books except for "compare your creations to these books". That process utilizes common sense. How you get to that point is completely irrelevant.

 

[dcollins]

Unfortunately, you've really just lost me on this issue. I never brought up my personal website in this thread (nor do I have anything there on the ECL issue), so I don't see what that's in response to. I think I understand ECL well enough to know that it doesn't apply to class levels or NPCs, which is what you were comparing three posts up.

 

[LokiDR]

ECL power vs Levels

Is an ECL adjustment more powerful or less powerful than taking levels in a class, ignoring money.

Kreynolds would say less powerfull. So, not giving the money that would have come with the class levels makes taking ECL even less of an appealing concept.

Dcollins would probably say more powerfull. So, not giving money for ECL as you would if they person got more levels brings ECL and levels closer together.

I like to believe that +2 ECL is about as effective as 2 levels of a class, ignoring money. This means that money should given out evenly.


On a side note about core rules and ECL. They suck. They exist as more of a side note and a general concept in the DMG than good rules. FR deals with it better because there was an expectation that players would be allowed to play ECL races generally. Savage Species tried to completely expand this subject and seems crushed under its own weight and overpowered rules.

 

[kreynolds]

I never brought up my personal website in this thread (nor do I have anything there on the ECL issue), so I don't see what that's in response to.

It's in response to the quote above. You made a referrence to an "alternate body of rules", which is irrelevant. You tend to mention your website when you consider something a house rule, or "alternate", if you will, so I was just being preemptive. That's all. If I was out of line, I apologize.

I think I understand ECL well enough to know that it doesn't apply to class levels or NPCs, which is what you were comparing three posts up.

Sure it does. ECL is simply a measure of power. Character levels are used to determine ECL. Each and every feature of a class at any particular level can be broken down into numerical values to determine how much power each ability represents for that particular level. For example, take point buy systems that are used to build classes. It's the same concept. Each class ability is represented by a certain number of points, and the system serves as a guide to help you keep the class from being too powerful or too weak.

Now, one can claim that a point buy system used to build classes is an "alternate body of rules", but its irrelevant. In the end, optimally, that "alternate body of rules" helps you build a new class that is balanced against all the other classes. It is neither better nor worse. It is simply different. How you get to the final result makes no difference.

I mention this because that is what ECL is all about. Savage Species puts forth a system that helps you judge the power of a monster, even a monster with only one hit die. While not precise, as it only uses whole numbers, and while it requires a lot of acid testing in the end, common sense is what determines the final result. Other systems use the same premise as savage species, but they use smaller numbers. One ability could be worth +0.2 while another could be worth +0.05. When building a new one hit die minor player race, such as genasi, your final value should total +1.

These same systems can also be used to break down a class. You can use the system to take a single level of the fighter class and break it down to see what it's final value is, and ironically, it works. A class is nothing more than a monster. It's just broken up in stages. These stages can each be +1, or they can alternate between high and low, with occassional spikes in power throughout their progression.

So, in the end, ECL does apply to classes, in the sense that the system used to determine ECL and build new monsters can also be applied to current classes and to build new classes. Semantics, I suppose, but doesn't make a difference.

The point is that a class is nothing but a broken up monster.
The point is that what is "core" is meaningless.
The point is that common sense is the end-all-be-all.
The point is that how you get to the end-all-be-all makes no difference.

 

[dcollins]

Re: ECL power vs Levels

Dcollins would probably say more powerfull. So, not giving money for ECL as you would if they person got more levels brings ECL and levels closer together.

What I would actually say is "+2 ECL should be equal to 2 class levels (including the money that comes with those class levels)". It should be an option for players to take a monster whose naked raw power is balanced against a fellow experienced, decked-out adventurer. That's not possible under FRCS because every monster must come automatically with thousands of gold pieces in equipment.

 

[Nail]

You could look at this another way:

A "X" level normal (say, human) character is an "X" CR monster.

Yet a "Y" CR monster is not a "Y" ECL.

Why? Because of the money/equipment issue. A "Y" CR monster with equipment of a "Y" level normal character is much more powerful than his given CR.

In D&D, what equipment you have makes a huge difference. Gaining equipment is assumed to be part of the leveling process.

 

[kreynolds]

Re: ECL power vs Levels

Is an ECL adjustment more powerful or less powerful than taking levels in a class, ignoring money.

Kreynolds would say less powerfull. So, not giving the money that would have come with the class levels makes taking ECL even less of an appealing concept.

Dcollins would probably say more powerfull. So, not giving money for ECL as you would if they person got more levels brings ECL and levels closer together.

If I went with the DMG, I would prefer that a race with a +2 ECL modifier be just as balanced as two levels that include wealth (and then not use the ECL to determine wealth), but none of the races in the FRCS quite float the bill (some come really really close though). That's why I think the designers changed their mind and decided to use ECL to determine character wealth, primarily because they realized the ECL modifiers were too high.

In truth, I would prefer to go with the DMG and not include the ECL modifier when determining wealth. However, I have become so used to handling it via the FRCS method in regards to weak races, but all the prestige races I design take this into account (they are treated as actual levels, so wealth is taken into account at each level, lessening the power gained).

I like to believe that +2 ECL is about as effective as 2 levels of a class, ignoring money. This means that money should given out evenly.

As would I. The aasimar(sp?) comes close enough that I don't gripe, and IMO, it probably shouldn't use ECL to determine character wealth, but the genasi have such a weak +1 modifier that I include said modifier to determine wealth and it doesn't bug to terribly to do so.

On a side note about core rules and ECL. They suck. They exist as more of a side note and a general concept in the DMG than good rules. FR deals with it better because there was an expectation that players would be allowed to play ECL races generally. Savage Species tried to completely expand this subject and seems crushed under its own weight and overpowered rules.

Yeah, I was really hoping that Savage Species would expand upon the "guessing game" of ECLs. After reading the entire book, it feels like they just slapped down a list of meaningless numbers and said "There ya' go. Have fun, and good luck."

Ah well.

 

[kreynolds]

You could look at this another way:

A "X" level normal (say, human) character is an "X" CR monster.

Yet a "Y" CR monster is not a "Y" ECL.

But this is already true before money is even a factor.