What ECL for a race with +4 to every ability score?
- Thread starter JPL
- Start date
This ones tough because it really depends on the class. For example, this race would make an absolute crap wizard. Wizards only really need int, and the spellcasting levels your losing would hurt. However, for classes like the monk and paladin, where you usually want 3 or 4 good stats, then this can be very useful.
Tarrasque Wrangler
First Post
Stray thought:
These guys would make the nastiest psions EVAR.
These guys would make the nastiest psions EVAR.
Well, Savage Species says that an ogre's unbalanced stat adjustments (+10 Str, -2 Dex, +4 Con, -4 Int, -4 Cha) are worth a +1 level adjustment, and an elder stone giant's unbalanced stat adjustments (+16 Str, +4 Dex, +8 Con, +4 Cha) are worth a +2 level adjustment. So it should be either +1 or +2 ECL.
I would probably tend to go with a +1 ECL - the reason being that not all stats are created equal. Most classes don't need high scores in all six abilities, so +4 to every stat isn't as much of a benefit as you would think. I would venture to say that an ogre's +10 Str and +4 Con would be more valuable to a fighter or barbarian than +4 to all stats would - probably a lot more. Paladins and monks will be the ones to benefit most from playing this race.
Another thing to consider is that, if everyone in the party is going to be playing this race, the level adjustment is going to hurt the spellcasters a lot more than the fighter types. Sure, a +4 to your spellcasting stat is nice, but at most levels it's probably not going to make up for having a caster level 2 lower than normal.
So I'd probably go with +1 ECL. But, as Savage Species says, the acid test is, would you rather play the alternate race character at that ECL, or a standard character of that level? You might want to run that test for a few different character types and see what you find out.
I would probably tend to go with a +1 ECL - the reason being that not all stats are created equal. Most classes don't need high scores in all six abilities, so +4 to every stat isn't as much of a benefit as you would think. I would venture to say that an ogre's +10 Str and +4 Con would be more valuable to a fighter or barbarian than +4 to all stats would - probably a lot more. Paladins and monks will be the ones to benefit most from playing this race.
Another thing to consider is that, if everyone in the party is going to be playing this race, the level adjustment is going to hurt the spellcasters a lot more than the fighter types. Sure, a +4 to your spellcasting stat is nice, but at most levels it's probably not going to make up for having a caster level 2 lower than normal.
So I'd probably go with +1 ECL. But, as Savage Species says, the acid test is, would you rather play the alternate race character at that ECL, or a standard character of that level? You might want to run that test for a few different character types and see what you find out.
Last edited:
This is actually for a d20 Modern campaign...modern pulp adventure, where the "pulp heroes" are actually genetically superior specimens that occasionally appear in the general population, sometimes inherited from previous generations but often seemingly at random.
Anyone with a +4 to every ability is going to stand out in a crowd, to say the least. I'm going with the idea that these guys are like demigods --- they have a drive to explore, to conquer, to create; they are capable of enormous acts of good or evil. They're humanity turned up to eleven.
Anyone with a +4 to every ability is going to stand out in a crowd, to say the least. I'm going with the idea that these guys are like demigods --- they have a drive to explore, to conquer, to create; they are capable of enormous acts of good or evil. They're humanity turned up to eleven.
RangerWickett
Legend
Grog said:
Please tell me that's not true. Or at least that you refer to altering the Challenge Rating for an NPC, as opposed stating the level adjustment for a PC. I mean, you can't seriously think that a 3rd level human fighter (Attack bonus +6, Dmg 1d8+2) is anywhere near a match for a 1st level Elder Stone Giant fighter (Attack bonus +5 [I'm assuming he's gargantuan], Dmg 1d12+8).
Grog said:
It is important to note that both those races require you to have several monster Hit Dice, and that ECL = HD + EL. If this race is a 1 HD race, you don't need to waste levels on monster HD, making those races' EL's poor comparisons.
If you want a good benchmark, try Drow. They are a +2EL 1HD race. Is +4 to all stats better than a Drow's abilities? Personally, I think yes, it is. Is it better than a Half-Fiend or Half-Celestial template (with lots of +2s and +4s and some sweet abilities... oh, and EL of +4)? I think not. So, it seems to me to be somewhere in between, so I'd suggest a +3 EL if the super-humans are a 1HD race.
If you have to take monster HD (which is usually inefficient), then the EL should probably be scaled back some (as it was for the aforementioned ogre and giant).
So, what's better? A 10th level <insert class here> super-human or a (10+EL)th level human <insert class here>. Remember that with +4s across the board, this race has incredible multiclassing potential (especially if they retain the human's "any" favoured class).
