Re: Minotaur ECL

[kreynolds]

Both preliminary...

Yup.

...and accessory.

Well....yeah.

The original poster asked for the value from the DMG (i.e., the core rules).

I know. I wasn't arguing. I wasn't challenging anyone. It's not always a bad thing to have all the information. Don't get your panties in a wad.

 

[Corwin]

I got your back, k...

Both preliminary and accessory.
The original poster asked for the value from the DMG (i.e., the core rules).

In addition to what k said in response to this, I'd like to add something.

"Core Rules"? Hello?!?

For your information, ECL isn't even in any of the three core cule books. The first attempts at establishing a playable ECL system didn't happen until the FRCS.

So, please, don't act like the DMG is the end-all-be-all on the subject of ECL and playing monsters as races. The rules in there were obviously not working or they wouldn't have had to repair them.

And do you really think ECL +8 is right?

+6d8 HD (+6 BAB)
+5 natural armor
+8 Str, +4 Con, -4 Int, -2 Cha
Size: Large
Natural weapons (really good ones, at that)
Charge attack
Scent
Natural cunning
+4 spot, listen, search

did I miss anything?

And all of that for only +8? THe HD alone are +6 of it. Being large is another +1, IMHO. The natural armor is worth another +1 I'd guess. Right there we are already at +8. Now, you factor in stat bonuses (effectively a net +14 total!), good skill bonuses, natural weapons and abilities, etc.

I think the Dragon Mag version at+10 is about spot on.

And that, my friend, is my take on the subject.

 

[Lord Ben]

Anything with natural HD doesn't have a favored class. Their favored class for Multiclassing is basically their monstrous humanoid HD.

 

[IanB]

Anything with natural HD doesn't have a favored class. Their favored class for Multiclassing is basically their monstrous humanoid HD.

This is not true - there are plenty of critters with natural HD that have favored classes. It does get to count its monstrous humanoid HD as its favored class, as even though it can't advance in it, it would be a huge disadvantage for multi-HD creatures that wanted to take levels to have to wait for their class level to be within 1 of their natural HD to avoid taking an xp penalty, on top of the already harsh ECL effects. I would think that for creatures with HD and a favored class, both the favored class and the monster levels would get to be considered 'favored' although I don't have the rules handy right now.

Bugbears - 3 HD - favored class: rogue
Centaur - 4 HD - favored class: ranger
Gnoll - 2 HD - favored class: ranger
Lizardfolk - 2 HD - favored class: druid

Etc.

 

[dcollins]

Re: I got your back, k...

"Core Rules"? Hello?!?

For your information, ECL isn't even in any of the three core cule books. The first attempts at establishing a playable ECL system didn't happen until the FRCS.

The DMG's (p. 22) "Level Equivalents", have, after the fact, come to be commonly abbreviated as ECLs.
You argument likewise implies that there are no AOOs or MEAs in the core rules, either.

So, please, don't act like the DMG is the end-all-be-all on the subject of ECL and playing monsters as races. The rules in there were obviously not working or they wouldn't have had to repair them.

And do you really think ECL +8 is right?...

The original poster explicitly asked for the DMG's Minotaur ECL figure. I answered that question.
(Or, more accurately, corrected the second poster's even further underpowered misattribution.)

 

[Corwin]

Re: Re: I got your back, k...

The DMG's (p. 22) "Level Equivalents", have, after the fact, come to be commonly abbreviated as ECLs.
You argument likewise implies that there are no AOOs or MEAs in the core rules, either.

Sorry, but no. This isn't a semantics debate. I'm note arguing about abreviations. I'm talking about the rules themselves. No, the "Level Equivelant" system found in the DMG is not the same system as ECL.

The old DMG system did not handle bonus HD the same, nor base XP.

Completely different. Not the same. Not just semantics or acronyms. The actual mechanics.

So, in fact, to use ECL properly, you must ignore the DMG system. At least, if you plan to use ECL at all (something I recommend). Sure, you can use the DMG version instead, but it isn't as well thought out as ECL.

I'm sure they will put an even cleaner "spin" on the whole subject when the Tooth & Claw splat book comes out (or whatever the heck it's going to be called now).

 

[IanB]

???

Aren't the ECL rules basically just a clarification of the DMG rules?

 

[Forrester]

Re: Re: I got your back, k...

The DMG's (p. 22) "Level Equivalents", have, after the fact, come to be commonly abbreviated as ECLs.
You argument likewise implies that there are no AOOs or MEAs in the core rules, either.




The original poster explicitly asked for the DMG's Minotaur ECL figure. I answered that question.
(Or, more accurately, corrected the second poster's even further underpowered misattribution.)

Since you're being a dickwad, I might as well point out that the original poster did NOT explicitly ask for the DMG's Minotaur ECL figure. He said he didn't have his DMG with him, and then asked for the Minotaur ECL figure. You inferred that he was looking for the DMG figure -- and also inferred that he wouldn't be interested in any updated figures. Clearly, the latter inference was presumptuous, and your implication that the Dragon figures are irrelevant to this thread is chock full of bone-headed goodness.

*tsk* *tsk* *tsk*

 

[kreynolds]

Re: Re: Re: I got your back, k...

Since you're being a dickwad, I might as well point out that the original poster did NOT explicitly ask for the DMG's Minotaur ECL figure. He said he didn't have his DMG with him, and then asked for the Minotaur ECL figure. You inferred that he was looking for the DMG figure -- and also inferred that he wouldn't be interested in any updated figures. Clearly, the latter inference was presumptuous, and for your implication that the Dragon figures are irrelevant to this thread is chock full of bone-headed goodness.

*tsk* *tsk* *tsk*

Oh my God!!! Now that's frickin' funny!!

 

[Corwin]

???

Aren't the ECL rules basically just a clarification of the DMG rules?

Hehe. Where should I start? OK, the two biggest differences...

1) DMG, page 24. The old system had starting equipment based on actual class levels only. So, a minotaur with 2 fighter levels would start with 900 gp in equipment. Now, the rules for ECL base it on actual ECL. That then gives him the starting gold of a 12th level PC (2 class levels + 10 ECL = 88,000 gp). Big difference.

2) DMG, same page. Starting XP was originally based solely on HD. So a 1st-level ogre fighter would start at 4,000 XP (and he is 4th level because he has 4 HD: 3 from ogre, 1 from fighter). Yet, even the DMG lists ogre as +5 level equivelant. So the ogre (if this were an ECL system) should start as a 6th-level XP. So instead of needing 4,000 XP to advance his "first" level (to 2nd), he now needs 6,000. Half again as much. Of course, the current ogre ECL may have changed, this is just based on the DMG number (of +5).

Anyway, as you can see, the two systems are nothing alike.

And don't even get me started on the "less than 10 ability score charts". Sheesh. What's the deal there? Why don't DMs require half-orcs to roll on that chart (as is recommended in the chart's description)? Because it's silly. They should have just applied the standard penalty mods and moved on. If an average Strength for a race is 6, then they should just take a -4 to the stat. Why the sliding scale? I mean, I'm sure there are nice little, subtle mathematical neatnesses going on under the surface, but I don't think it's necessary, IMO. Not when the reverse isn't used. Why not a sliding scale for high stats? There's more tendency to abuse stat bonuses than penalties. What's worse, a minotaur PC puting an 18 in Strength (giving him a 26), or dropping a 5 into Intelligence and saving a point (due to the minimum 3 rules)? Exactly.