Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kobold Stew" data-source="post: 1741826" data-attributes="member: 23484">Thinking about it, we can truly measure what the system does to monsters with hit dice: Cases 1 and 2 represent optimized gnolls, with and without class levels.case 1. 14 Int Gnoll-- 2d8 +1 LA = ECL 3maximum number of skill points: 15feats: 1case 2. 14 Int gnoll-- 2d8 +1 LA +1 ranger (preferred class) = ECL 4maximum number of skill points: 23feats: 2 + track = 3Case 3 represents the fewest number of skill points I can get with a one hit die monster, which is NINE skill points more than the best equivalent gnoll. Case 4 represents an average ranger (race chosen because it receives no skill bonuses; both races have -2 Int penalty). case 3. 14 int half-orc 3rd level sorc = ECL 3 (the worst I can imagine)maximum number of skill points: 24.feats: 1 case 4. 14 Int half-orc 4th level ranger = ECL 4maximum number of skill points: 56feats: 2 + track + endurance + weap spec. = 5The worst case one-die monster beats the best gnoll by 3 points/level at ECL 3.The best gnoll in his preferred class will always be down 33 skill points and will always be behind in feats on any smaller race.Don't get me wrong:  our clever gnoll is a real role-play challenge, etc. But there does seem to be a problem with the lowest multiple-die monsters and their level adjustments. (Unless I am missing something here).(Yeah, I know he has natural armour +1; Bugbears have +3, though, and lizardfolk +5 with the same LA.)Where does this come from? I know there was a tradition back in the 80s that Gnolls were a lazy race (Roger Moore in an early Dragon, perhaps?)--is this a holdover from that? Do gnolls not even have the chance to do well in life?sigh.</blockquote>

Verification