YALF! (Yet Another LA Fix)

[garrowolf]

Easy fix for LA

There is a much simpler way of dealing with LA that works fine. I've been using it for a while.
There are character levels which is your character's total number of levels. There are class levels which are the number of levels that you have in your class. Then there are enhancement levels.
Your Character Level = Your Class Level + your Enhancement Levels.

Your Race may be +2 LA and you might have cyberware worth +1 LA or some Magic powers for +1 LA a piece.

You have to have at least one level in your class. If your GM starts the game at level 1 then you can ONLY take a class level. If he starts it at 5 then you could take up to 4 levels worth of enhancements and one class level. This determines how powerful you are.

Now any bonuses from your class treat you as if you are level 1, but threats are based on your character level.

This means that you are trading one benefit for another. If you find something is too valuable at a +1 LA then make it +2 LA. They may have a lot of bonuses but they won't be as far along with their feats and skills. Ultimately it depends on the GM but this balances things quite well.

 

[Aus_Snow]

I think I broke the system. . .

But I don't know. Curiosity got a hold of me, and so I tried the Fire Giant with this fix, and uh, came up with pretty wildly different LAs, courtesy of the two methods you detail.

However, I only gave your posts a quick read, so well, would you mind taking the time to go over the Fire Giant yourself? If'n ya don't mind. It's just that what I ended up with was one being more than double the other! So yeah, not sure if I've so much broken the system as not even used it properly. . .

Anyway, I like the idea of the fix, and it looks elegant enough, to me. I'll have to check out a few other examples, to make my mind up either way.

 

[Will]

Heh. I've mostly abandoned this idea.

My current idea is to adopt approach where none of the physical stats have more than +2 starting out, and earn everything else through racial HD.

So, for example, a fire giant would be +2 Str, -2 Dex, +2 Con, 2 slam attacks, immunity to fire, vulnerability to cold, rock throwing, rock catching.

Each giant HD gives them +2 Str, +1 Con, +1 natural armor until they hit 4 HD and become Large (with no stat adjustments), then can take up to another 6 HD gaining bonuses (natural armor stops at +8).

(This is leveraging the idea that +1 giant HD = +1/2 LA credit = ~4-5 ability points)

 

[Sylrae]

One thought. Immunities are bad.

You especially don't want to give them to PCs unless absolutely necessary.

I'd suggest swapping fire immunity to resistance, even if it's a big number. (Fire Resist 40 or so should be good).

And from the racial HD, while I still support my statement of monster classes, larger stat adjusts and size category changes are hard to balance.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Oh. It's a pity you're not going ahead with it, Will. But I understand how tricky this 3e issue can be, and how it could easily seem futile, 'fixing' it at all.

I've also decided to have a stab at it, actually. A more conservative approach really, so in practise there won't be ECL 1 Fire Giants or Succubi. Just no. If someone really has to play such a thing (or if it happens to be appropriate to a specific campaign) the whole PL (to borrow a term from M&M) will simply be higher, and that's that.

Basically, I'll be working from CR. Matching 'ECL' to that, using the most simple, balanced methods I can devise. Having some luck so far. If it proves fruitful, I'll post it here. In another thread here, anyway.

 

[Sylrae]

Matching ECL to CR is a good way to start.

Tips:
- Reduce Immunities to resistances of some kind.
- Lower At-Will abilities to x/day, particularly for combat abilities.
- Match HD to CR, and assign HD that make it closer to the same HP total.
- Match Skill Points to HD, along with Feats etc.

I do that, and then break that down into class levels.

 

[Aus_Snow]

So far, it's working fantastically well for some creatures, the um, 'system' I'm working with, which happens to be partly typed out and partly in my head. . .

It's the exceptions that lead to the headaches, naturally. Ah well, who knows. Maybe it isn't as futile as it has appeared to everyone else I know of who's ever tried tackling it.

Thanks for posting some thoughts on it, Sylrae. Despite my current doubts (well, 'difficulties' would cover it) I'm always curious to hear what anyone has to say about this topic.