Pathfinder 1E Sometimes pathfinder confuses me.

[Sunseeker]

So, As you may or may not know, I enjoy playing with templates, PCs, NPCs, you name it, and I feel that Pathfinder has generally smoothed out the LA that made no sense in 3.5, but yet, some things still make no sense. I have been generally under the impression that roughly every 6 levels negates a level of LA, more or less. However, one template still confuses me; the half-celestial/half-fiend template wherein the LA actually increases when applied to higher HD creatures, even though logically speaking, the bonuses are comparatively less. Perhaps it is simply unclear, and level adjustment only applies based on how many HD the creature had to start with. So, Bob the level 1 half-feindish knight gets a lot out of it, while Joe the level 11 half-feindish rogue would get less. But that doesn't seem to make much sense either. Honestly, my guess would be that this is a site error and that more HD creatures/players have the lower LA while lower HD creatures get the higher LA.

Anyway, I realize that the SRD has errors in it and perhaps this is one of them, so if anyone could perhaps clarify this for me it would be appreciated.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Most templates give "flat" bonuses, whose value effectively drops as you gain levels. Gaining a 3rd-level spell-like ability is a big deal if you're a 5th-level character, but at 18th-level you could have replaced that with a magic item.

Half-fiends/celestials give more powerful spell-like abilities as you gain levels. Some of those are even good. I don't think the LA should "depreciate", even if I'm not sure it should scale upward either.

 

[Sunseeker]

Most templates give "flat" bonuses, whose value effectively drops as you gain levels. Gaining a 3rd-level spell-like ability is a big deal if you're a 5th-level character, but at 18th-level you could have replaced that with a magic item.

Half-fiends/celestials give more powerful spell-like abilities as you gain levels. Some of those are even good. I don't think the LA should "depreciate", even if I'm not sure it should scale upward either.

I was thinking it might be the spells. But without the spells it doesn't feel worth a +3, but it's still too much for a +1. It does feel roughly on par with the half-dragon template's +2 without them.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Would you call it +3 if given to a fighter, who would really appreciate the spells?

 

[MerricB]

The half-fiend works that way because that's how it was in 3.5E. With most of the original monsters, PF doesn't tamper with them. So, in 3.5E, that's how half-fiends work. Their CR ranges from +1 to +3.

Except that they had a flat LA of +4. Which comes from their magic resistance which is a big deal against most monsters. DR 10/magic? That's good.

Cheers!

 

[Sunseeker]

Would you call it +3 if given to a fighter, who would really appreciate the spells?

No. Because by that point the stat bonuses will be less significant, and the spells still only have a 1/day limitation. Also, the spells are not going to bring the fighter anywhere near a well-optimized cleric or wizard of comparable level. I further don't subscribe to the belief that a well-build fighter needs spells in order to play on-par with other classes. There'll never be enough to bring him up with CoDzilla, but short of someone optimizing for the ultimate druid, the fighter, especially with Pathfinder's improvements, will be fairly on par with most classes.

 

[Sunseeker]

The half-fiend works that way because that's how it was in 3.5E. With most of the original monsters, PF doesn't tamper with them. So, in 3.5E, that's how half-fiends work. Their CR ranges from +1 to +3.

Except that they had a flat LA of +4. Which comes from their magic resistance which is a big deal against most monsters. DR 10/magic? That's good.

Cheers!

So you're saying that they are that way because Pathfinder didn't mess with them, except that they did, so they're not. So they're just wonky because PF did mess with them, but didn't bother to finish messing with them.

 

[MerricB]

No. Because by that point the stat bonuses will be less significant

That's one point I differ from you on: I consider stat bonuses to always be significant.

The trouble with calculating a CR from the spells comes from the same problem with the LA in 3E: you've got to use the most optimised version.

Consider that you can give a CR 7, 12 HD Hill giant this template and it then gains blasphemy! That's a really nasty spell which normally could only be cast by 11th level characters. So, what's the CR of this giant? That's the problem with templates: they have to be conservative in their CR adjustments, and it's a big problem when they grant spells.

 

[MerricB]

So you're saying that they are that way because Pathfinder didn't mess with them, except that they did, so they're not. So they're just wonky because PF did mess with them, but didn't bother to finish messing with them.

Yes!

For the most part, PF didn't change much about the monsters (except when class abilities changed, see smite evil), but it changed more in the underlying rules system - in particular, jettisoning Level Adjustment, instead tying it into CR.

 

[Sunseeker]

That's one point I differ from you on: I consider stat bonuses to always be significant.

Differ, but I don't hear disagreement. Less significant should not be taken to be the same as INsignificant. The bonuses will still matter of course, just matter less.

The trouble with calculating a CR from the spells comes from the same problem with the LA in 3E: you've got to use the most optimised version.

Which is why I'm now wondering if +2 would be fair for a version w/o spells. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

Consider that you can give a CR 7, 12 HD Hill giant this template and it then gains blasphemy! That's a really nasty spell which normally could only be cast by 11th level characters. So, what's the CR of this giant? That's the problem with templates: they have to be conservative in their CR adjustments, and it's a big problem when they grant spells.

Yeah, and I'm not a particular fan of spells to begin with. So now I'm thinking that the template would be fair at a flat +2.