Subtle Brilliance...

[BryonD]

No rules exist for determining LA; hence my assertion that no rules exist for applying XP to a monster. LA is a crappy "fix."

EDIT: And don't expect me to chase around through the SRD looking for which creatures used in your examples have LA and which don't...

Wulf

Hmmm

I think that is an odd position to take.
You can assert that you do not like a rule.
But I'm not so sure you can assert that the rule does not exist simply because you do not like it.
The rule does exist, and as much as anything else is a swag, I find it to be adequate.



I would propose that the Chpt 13 of GT could be used to calc the CR of a vrock thus yeilding the exact equivalent character level (to the extent that Chptr 13 is accurate, since we are being precise now). The exact CR would be functionally the ECL. The HD is known at 10. So LA from a GT POV would be CR-10.

And in response to your edit may I add:

???

 

[Cheiromancer]

It's pretty far out there, the vrock character. Even for standard DnD, let alone a lower magic setting like Grim Tales. I think the only place where such characters are supported is in Savage Species, and even there it is borderline. Not that Savage Species is the most solid rules expansion ever put out by WotC, either. Anyways, let's just forget it- or at the least start a new thread.

If the character is CR15, CL 15, the XP per level award is 225 (300*(X/Y)) and the total XP earned is (15)(225) or 4500.

If the character CR18, CL15 +3.0 CR, the XP per level award for the same encounter is 208, and the total XP earned is (15)(208) = 3120.

I see your point. My thought was that a CR18, CL18 character would get (18)(208) = 3744 xp, which is 20.8% of the experience needed to get to the next level. Compare to the CR18, CL15 +3.0 CR character, whose 3120 xp is (surprise!) also 20.8% of the experience needed to get to the next level. So from that perspective he is not advancing any slower.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

I think that is an odd position to take. You can assert that you do not like a rule. But I'm not so sure you can assert that the rule does not exist simply because you do not like it. The rule does exist, and as much as anything else is a swag, I find it to be adequate.

Until you want to play a monster that does not have an LA.

Unless you understand the mechanics behind determining LA, you have half a rule. A rule that "exists" but references a mechanic that does not exist is hardly adequate.

If you like LA, it may be worth the effort to use Chapter 13 to try to determine how it is derived (start by adding non-HD factors).


Wulf

 

[BryonD]

Until you want to play a monster that does not have an LA.

Unless you understand the mechanics behind determining LA, you have half a rule. A rule that "exists" but references a mechanic that does not exist is hardly adequate.

Such as what monster?

I really disagree that this is a big deal at all. Within the MM, pretty much any creature with an INT and HD+LA<21 is already covered.

What is the referenced mechanic for Haste being a 3rd level spell?
There is no mechanic for this, therefore is must be "hardly adequate"?
What is the referenced mechanic for PClass prerequisites?
There is no mechanic for this, therefore is must be "hardly adequate"?
What is the referenced mechanic for balancing a domain's spells with its special ability?

I'm sure I could think of more than these that just came to me off the top of my head...

At some point the math breaks down and you have to go
with GM responsibility.
And the exisiting system works fine.

If you like LA, it may be worth the effort to use Chapter 13 to try to determine how it is derived (start by adding non-HD factors).

Wulf

Isn't that pretty much already done?
If Chapter 13 yields monsters that are equivalently powerful, then there is nothing left to really derive, just some numbers to crunch. CR-HD = LA.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Such as what monster?

I really disagree that this is a big deal at all. Within the MM, pretty much any creature with an INT and HD+LA<21 is already covered.

Obviously untrue on even cursory examination. I'm already looking at demons: Quasit. You want more? An easy one: Medusa.

Isn't that pretty much already done?
If Chapter 13 yields monsters that are equivalently powerful, then there is nothing left to really derive, just some numbers to crunch. CR-HD = LA.

I don't think so. If that were true, as Chap13 yields CR results very close to core, then this would hold true for core monsters, which we know not to be true.

Pre-Golden Rule CR? Maybe, but 1 HD <> 1 CR. The most expensive creature type (by HD) is the Dragon, and IIRC they're 0.75/HD. The rest cluser around .55/HD. Which means that in the total CR equation, a creature's special abilities are probably contributing the larger portion of its CR. Because ECL is the sum of HD and LA, it stands to reason that LA is derived only from non-HD factors.

Wulf

 

[BryonD]

Obviously untrue on even cursory examination. I'm already looking at demons: Quasit. You want more? An easy one: Medusa.

Whatever. I forgot that wotc for whatever reason decided not to supply values for monsters they deemed inappropriate.
So I am in error on this entirely tangential specific item....
I have no idea why they do not deem those creature appropriate, as they meet the definitions presented on page 7.

As with Haste being 3rd level, lack of mechanical guidance does not mean you can not make other non-damage dealing 3rd level spells.

I don't think so. If that were true, as Chap13 yields CR results very close to core, then this would hold true for core monsters, which we know not to be true.

Pre-Golden Rule CR? Maybe, but 1 HD <> 1 CR. The most expensive creature type (by HD) is the Dragon, and IIRC they're 0.75/HD. The rest cluser around .55/HD. Which means that in the total CR equation, a creature's special abilities are probably contributing the larger portion of its CR. Because ECL is the sum of HD and LA, it stands to reason that LA is derived only from non-HD factors.

Wulf

And back to the start of the issue we go.....

Some terms from D&D, such as CR, have refined or otherwise tweaked meanings in the UK/GT system. You are using the terms interchangebly and then attacking the points where that assumption fails.

Obviously LA derives from non HD factors. I never claimed otherwise. You are simply shooting down a strawman argument of your own creation.

And it is certainly a truism that in D&D ECL != CR.
But in D&D, PCs don't really have CRs.
GT PCs do have CRs and the definitions have morphed to some degree.

The GT definition of CR includes the built in concept of CR vs same CR is a 50/50 single fight. That does not apply to D&D. It may frequently happen to be true by the nature of the system, but it is not an absolute.

The level of a character includes consideration of overall effectiveness outside of a combat. GT CR is about combat.
GT uses CR to assign XP. D&D uses level. Thus D&D considers factors outside of combat whereas GT is anchored to combat. (To avoid a tangent, I of course understand that "combat" may be more encompassing than simple violence, but direct battle is a simple and valid analogy and a fair high portion of encounters work around that model)

Bottom line: While D&D ECL = HD+LA and != CR, GT CR effectively replaces D&D ECL and GT CR by defintion = HD+LA.
That is where the GT system does require added GM judgement. The previosuly discussed case where you have two CR6 characters, one standard and one with fast healing is a good example. In a single combat they are a 50/50 fight. GT looks at that and decides they therefore deserve equal XP. OK, that is valid. But, IF the Fast Healing guy wins, he will greatly benefit from his fast healing. D&D looks at that consideration and says that the Fast Healing guy is better overall (probably via a further +1 LA) and therefore gives the fast healing guy less XP for the same fight. Because the GT system only looks at the single fight odds, there is no real concept of overall ECL and it is left to the GM to determine if allowing an otherwise overall equal CR character with fast healing is appropriate to the game.

In GT, the entire CR defintion is built on factors which include contributions from both HD and those other things that are non-HD associated. So the very idea of LA is blurred and redundant anyway. In part this is because it is fairly well agreed upon that monster HD don't give the same bang for the buck as character levels. Thus, treating HD as an addend for calculation of ECL is not very accurate. GT/UK does a good job of addressing this in a more thoughtful manner, as you described.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Whatever. I forgot that wotc for whatever reason decided not to supply values for monsters they deemed inappropriate.
So I am in error on this entirely tangential specific item....
I have no idea why they do not deem those creature appropriate, as they meet the definitions presented on page 7.

I think this would fall under the realm of GM responsibility.

As with Haste being 3rd level, lack of mechanical guidance does not mean you can not make other non-damage dealing 3rd level spells.

I really shouldn't respond to this as it isn't at all the same thing. I'm not even sure what point you're trying to make, honestly.

As it turns out, I've done the design work breaking down spells and assigning them a level based on their effects. But setting that aside for a moment, NO, the core rules also don't tell you in concrete terms how to tell if a spell is 3rd level.

My point is that you can't include LA as part of your solution because-- as there is no mechanic for determining LA-- if you choose the wrong creature, you do not have the necessary data to make the determination.

Simple case in point, I want to play a Quasit. Can I do this, how, and how many XP do I need to go up a level?

GT says, no problem, you can play a Quasit, as long as you choose a character class and-- in the realm of GM responsibility and fairness-- your total CR + 1 CL does not outstrip the rest of the players PCs'. When the time comes to determine XP, I will factor your total CR into the party's EL, I will come up with an XP per CL amount, and I will award it to you based on your character levels.

You are using the terms interchangebly and then attacking the points where that assumption fails. Obviously LA derives from non HD factors. I never claimed otherwise. You are simply shooting down a strawman argument of your own creation.

I'm not attacking or shooting down anything. I'm offering suggestions. Read it again and remove the prejudicial and predatory attitude you've erroneously ascribed to me.

The previosuly discussed case where you have two CR6 characters, one standard and one with fast healing is a good example. In a single combat they are a 50/50 fight. GT looks at that and decides they therefore deserve equal XP.

No, GT doesn't decide they deserve equal XP. One character is CR6, all CL. The other character is CR6, a portion of which is fast healing. GT says that the XP award per character level is the same, but the character with fast healing must have fewer character levels, and earns less XP.

D&D looks at that consideration and says that the Fast Healing guy is better overall (probably via a further +1 LA) and therefore gives the fast healing guy less XP for the same fight.

GT does the same. The difference between GT and core is that there is no need for ECL or LA. A "monster" character's level is his actual character level, but we determine his EL (and thus his XP) based on his total CR. This result is the same as ECL/LA, with fewer terms and more flexibility.


Wulf

 

[BryonD]

Crap

It would help if I'd quit making stupid errors.

Please allow me to re-state without that stupid mistake, because ultimately, it does not change the point.

D&D uses CL (ECL, whatever) to both determine degree of challenge and appropriate quantity of reward.

GT break that into two parts (quite intelligently).
A) CR determines degree of challenge and the scale of the reward
B) CL converts the scale of the reward into actual quantity.

Chapter 13 provides a solid method for establishing part A. And for all intents and purposes, this replaces LA+HD. (Which I was trying to say before, when I went to far and made the error). Part B can take care of itself.

Example: Calculate the CR of a classless PC Vrock. Now for any encounter we can calculate odds of victory and appropriate base XP amount. There appears to be a problem however. Base XP is multiplied by character level. This is zero, so our Vrock player never gains XP. But, this is easy to solve. We know that 13.333 "approriate" encounters is the target for gaining one level. So give a classless monster PC negative 1000 XP and treat his CL as 1 for purposes of XP. Now, after 13.333 encounters he will be at ZERO XP and gain character level 1. Now he has a class level and the system works normally from here. He will have gained that 1000 xp to get to zero in the exact same number of encounters as the rest of his party gained 15,000 or 18,000 or whatever the correct number needed for them was. So it works fine.

I understand that GT is not designed with this kind of high fantasy in mind.
But you've already done it. You (plural, Hello UK, et al) designed a great system that can handle both low fantasy AND high fantasy and everything in between.

Do not sell youself short.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Crap

It would help if I'd quit making stupid errors.

Welcome to the club!

Example: Calculate the CR of a classless PC Vrock. Now for any encounter we can calculate odds of victory and appropriate base XP amount. There appears to be a problem however. Base XP is multiplied by character level. This is zero, so our Vrock player never gains XP. But, this is easy to solve. We know that 13.333 "approriate" encounters is the target for gaining one level. So give a classless monster PC negative 1000 XP and treat his CL as 1 for purposes of XP. Now, after 13.333 encounters he will be at ZERO XP and gain character level 1. Now he has a class level and the system works normally from here. He will have gained that 1000 xp to get to zero in the exact same number of encounters as the rest of his party gained 15,000 or 18,000 or whatever the correct number needed for them was. So it works fine.

Well, BD, you've done it again: restated what I have been trying to say all along. Apparently I'm incapable of leading you to understanding and you just have to get there on your own.

However, I would treat "Vrock" as a race, essentially; just let him pick up CL1 before he begins play and dispense with the negative XP. The only functional difference this makes is increasing his starting CR by 1. If you are worried about "balance" within the party, this extra +1 CR (from CL1) might mean the race is out of bounds for where you want to begin your campaign.

I want to make sure we agree on one last thing. When you say, "Calculate the CR of a classless Vrock," you don't simply mean look up his CR in the MM; you mean actually take him step by step through Chapter 13, including the Golden Rule, but NOT the 2/3 rule-- because he's a character, not a monster.

It may help if you think of this in terms of LA that you have already pointed out. LA is an adjustment without benefit-- the only thing it does is bump you up into a higher XP bracket, meaning you have to earn relatively more XP than your HD + CL otherwise indicated.

The extra bump that the core system puts into LA is exactly the same concept as not granting the 2/3 adjustment. The both simply implement a "penalty" of sorts for taking a monster and playing him as a character. And, I submit, LA is just as likely to over-value a character (getting him in over his head; for example, as a Vrock would be among 18th level PCs) as using true CR does in GT.

One might notice that UK calculates the Vrock at CR 21.998 before the Golden Rule, CR17 after the Golden Rule. Add 1 CL and your playable Vrock character is CR18. He'll need 13 1/3 encounters of moderate difficulty (CR18, assuming he's in a party of 4) in order to gain a level. If that seems awfully familiar to ECL18, it's not by accident.

If you needed a reason to trust UKs system as detailed in Chapter 13, this would be a good start.

I understand that GT is not designed with this kind of high fantasy in mind. But you've already done it. You (plural, Hello UK, et al) designed a great system that can handle both low fantasy AND high fantasy and everything in between.

Well, yes, I know. That's what the text on page 185 is meant to infer.


Wulf

 

[BryonD]

Welcome to the club!

This clubs sucks. How do I get out?

Well, BD, you've done it again: restated what I have been trying to say all along. Apparently I'm incapable of leading you to understanding and you just have to get there on your own.

However, I would treat "Vrock" as a race, essentially; just let him pick up CL1 before he begins play and dispense with the negative XP. The only functional difference this makes is increasing his starting CR by 1. If you are worried about "balance" within the party, this extra +1 CR (from CL1) might mean the race is out of bounds for where you want to begin your campaign.

OK, though one point of disagreement (as I understood it) was that a classless monster MAY be handled by the system. As long as 13.333 EL-4 encounters = +1 level, all is well. I understand that you would just toss in a level and be done with it. And that is fine. But it ain't required.

I want to make sure we agree on one last thing. When you say, "Calculate the CR of a classless Vrock," you don't simply mean look up his CR in the MM; you mean actually take him step by step through Chapter 13, including the Golden Rule, but NOT the 2/3 rule-- because he's a character, not a monster.

Yes.
However, depending on the campaign I would keep the 2/3 rule as well. As we agreed before, the 2/3 rule is what makes CR=CR be a 50/50 fight. If I wanted to encourage standard class characters I would NOT use the 2/3 rule, thus imposing the CR premium. If I was willing to allow monsters characters to be fully equal to standard ones, without paying an entry price, then I would keep the 2/3 rule. Clearly, the second case would not be in the ultimate intent of GT.

And I'd NOT use the 2/3 rule in the vast majority of cases because I agree that there are VERY valid reasons for charging PCs a premium. My only claim is that the system does not break by keeping that in for players and in far -out everyone is a monster games, it just adds to the options and versitility of your system.

It may help if you think of this in terms of LA that you have already pointed out. LA is an adjustment without benefit-- the only thing it does is bump you up into a higher XP bracket, meaning you have to earn relatively more XP than your HD + CL otherwise indicated.

The extra bump that the core system puts into LA is exactly the same concept as not granting the 2/3 adjustment. The both simply implement a "penalty" of sorts for taking a monster and playing him as a character. And, I submit, LA is just as likely to over-value a character (getting him in over his head; for example, as a Vrock would be among 18th level PCs) as using true CR does in GT.

I don't agree that LA is an adjustment "without benefit". But it is a consistently overpriced benefit. Monster PCs in core certainly get less bang for their ECL than standard characters do. And I'll agree that this is a good thing and on that same line it is also a good thing to throw out the 2/3 rule for PCs.

So I agree with what you have said here, but I think "without benefit" overstates it. You could probably find two monsters with the same number and type of HD, but one with more powers. That one would have a higher LA, and the higher LA would be for the benefit of those extra powers. It would just overcharge for them. (Say maybe in the ballpark of 2/3 the true LA value in actual powers )

One might notice that UK calculates the Vrock at CR 21.998 before the Golden Rule, CR17 after the Golden Rule. Add 1 CL and your playable Vrock character is CR18. He'll need 13 1/3 encounters of moderate difficulty (CR18, assuming he's in a party of 4) in order to gain a level. If that seems awfully familiar to ECL18, it's not by accident.

If you needed a reason to trust UKs system as detailed in Chapter 13, this would be a good start.


Well, yes, I know. That's what the text on page 185 is meant to infer.


Wulf

Agreed.