-
Re: The LA-assignment thread V: Escape from LA
Open lock is useless if you have disable device, with the int bonus and dex bonus will equal or exceed the rogue in disable after one level since you are looking at more skill points than a rogue. You might be behind for one level on all rogue skills, but not by much and your second level you catch up or exceed.
-
Re: The LA-assignment thread V: Escape from LA
Quote:
Originally Posted by
javcs
You may have the trapfinding class ability ability right away, but you still need enough ranks in Disable Device and in UMD to actually catch up, and you probably want some in Open Lock, too. If you dump all your skill points into one of your new class skills you can get close to caught up in that one skill, leaving you behind on your other skills and on the other important new class skills.
I'm assuming that you had previously invested in Search.
It can use its extra skill points to put cross class ranks in umd and disable device. From there it gets to either even or down one, with 1 level of rogue.
-
Re: The LA-assignment thread V: Escape from LA
Open lock is a worthless trap of a skill made obsolete by knock and there are many low level magic items that give it to you. At most a competent rogue should have 1 point in open lock and then between dex and skill enhancement times should have an issue with locks.
Going strictly based on tier 3 is a bit silly as players will go straight class as often as they will be dipping trying to crazy optimize so we should have a balanced approach when comparing these monsters. With that said I believe rogue4/swashbuckler6/swordsage1 is a great comparison because that is apples to apples melee rogue comparison. Furthermore, the rogue4/swashbuckler6/swordsage1 is most likely going to have dumped disable device and search and is behind in UMD as it is cross class most of the time. Its role in the party is more along the lines of infiltrator, party face, secondary melee combatant. We can choose a race like changling to offset the change shape, and will most likely have a ring of invisibility which will offset HiPS and maybe an item for detect thoughts. Also an important note is that said rogue build will most likely dump trapfinding in favor of the changling ACF which gives more skill points, all knowledge skills, and good social benefits; also will probably be trading trap sense for penetrating attack acf to keep it relevant against otherwise immune enemies. Most likely you will be taking knowledge devotion, TWF, craven, weapon finesse and that keeps your list pretty tight and hard to work anything in.
So how does said customized rogue compare to Naztharune? Well first off your feats are much more open, you could go finesse and TWF but power attack and craven seem like much better bang for your buck though strong argument for finesse since you can take advantage of that +10 to dex, plus after taking another feat or swordsage at 12 you could take shadow blade to add that dex to your damage which is a nice boost. So feats are a lot more open and there are some nice options in there to give you some good returns. Also compared to the above melee rogue you are +2 BA a head, even before looking at ability scores you are a head on saves. Honestly your damage will probably be similar and you will be at a disadvantage against anything that is typically immune to precision damage. You will have more skill points and a probably similar skill choices, your HD give you slightly less HP however your con mod more than makes up for it and then some. The real place Naztharune stands out is its defensive abilities which help keep you up and kicking which is a good thing since your team is going to have a hell of a time healing and buffing you.
In the end Naz is noticeably better than its counter part melee rogue build and if it was the only comparison point I would say it is enough to hit +2 however the fact that you are a mundane and playing in a game where the best rogue options are to diversify with magic whether through assassin, unseen seer or so on a lot of the advantages level out. However, just based on the fact that you are enough better than comparable beatsticks or rogues and have all those rogue class features + more I think this is worth a +1.
-
Re: The LA-assignment thread V: Escape from LA
An official announcement from Inevitability:
The following is in response to recent debate about the Naztharune's LA, the difficulty of assigning level adjustments, and the discussions about what the balance goal even is.
When I started this thread, I never could've imagined it'd ever become this big. I saw it as some kind of side project that might be useful to a few people, but now, after a year and a half, it's grown into this huge popular community project.
I'll admit that earlier ratings are probably inconsistent with what the thread would recommend now, due to a better understanding of power levels, several revisions of assignment rules, and the lower past community involvement. As the thread moved on, the assignment system improved, but a core issue that I've failed to address is that of balance goals.
In this thread I've seen people claim that balance means being tier 3, that it means being somewhere in the tier 2-4 range, or that it means performing equal to some PC class (occasionally with the disclaimer that said PC class must be at least tier 4).
The issue here is that neither is a perfect solution. Rating every monster based on tier 3 not only creates the issue of outperforming existent tier 4 classes (a core argument of the +1 Naztharune side seems to be that +0 Naztharune would overshadow rogues), but also makes casting monsters lag behind compared to high-tier PC casters (after all, having casting ability equal to a tier 1 caster isn't a tier 3 trait).
The other option, rating everything relative to one from a set of PC classes, only strengthens the issues the game already has. Under those rules, a monster with 17th-level wizard casting and one as strong as a 17th-level martial might be nominally balanced against each other, but it's obvious they aren't really. There's the further issue of many monsters not being easily compared to default classes, or what even constitutes a default class (if a monster is significantly stronger than a cleric but about equal to a strongheart halfling cleric with a bunch of PrCs, is it balanced at +0?).
Up to now, I've applied either definition depending on my personal judgement, but I feel like this is not the way to continue. To avoid future confusion and streamline debates (right now, the question is as much 'how do we determine what LA the rakshasa should have' as it is 'what LA should the rakshasa have'), I've decided for a Public Vote on the matter.
For the coming few days, everybody can vote on:
Option #1: All monsters are to be rated so that they are more-or-less equal to a comparable PC class of equal ECL.
Option #2: All monsters are to be rated so that they are more-or-less equal to a tier 3 class of equal ECL.
The chosen option will be implemented from here on and included in the archive. More specific rules, such as how to deal with monsters that aren't easily compared to a PC class if option 1 is picked, can be discussed afterwards; this is mostly to decide on one of two different main methods.
Afterwards, there'll be opportunity for people to submit monsters that they suspect should be re-rated on account of me using a now-disused definition in their descriptions or a shifted perspective on monster power.
Rating of the Naztharune will be temporarily on hold while this whole issue is figured out. Apologies for this.
-
Re: The LA-assignment thread V: Escape from LA
-
Re: The LA-assignment thread V: Escape from LA
CHOOSE YOUR DESTINY, I guess.
I think 'comparable to a PC class' would be a fine balance point. Aiming for a single tier stratifies the experience. A rewarding experience can still be had by a T4 and T1 playing in the same group. This thread will help players of all skill levels take a step outside their comfort zone into something more fantastic.
Also related to the other rakshasha variant, at some certain points, caster classes get access to things that could warrant an asterisk. Comparing to a PC class will cut down on asterisks as we will have a better idea of when the cheese floodgates will be open to the layman.
-
Re: The LA-assignment thread V: Escape from LA
I would say Option 1, comparable to a class of equivalent ECL in the same role, with the caveat that if it is unclear what the best comparison is, or if there are multiple viable options for comparison, we err towards a higher tier/stronger option for comparison.
-
Re: The LA-assignment thread V: Escape from LA
I'll take a number 1.
As for re-evaluations, I don't think that's necessary in most cases, the threads have been pretty consistent. I'd start by looking at some of the very early monsters from MM1 as the thread wasn't very "developed" at that point and there wasn't as much community feedback.
-
Re: The LA-assignment thread V: Escape from LA
Option 1: not perfect, but should quiet most of the tier based debates, and move those discussions into more general competitive balance discussions; from there, a prospective DM can simply take this thread's recommendation at face value then modify the desired monster based on their own specific tier based balance point point. (i.e. no tier one classes and thus no monsters with features noted to resemble a tier 1 class, rather than having to assign an ad hoc LA for each monster based on the average competitive tier desired in the campaign.)
Dovetailng off of that, we should be very clear what class/combination of classes each specific monster is being compared to, with a focus on simplifying the formula-base classes preferred over PRCs, and as few classes as possible in the direct comparison.
To take the Naztharune as an example, the overall effectiveness might be comparable to a Rogue/Assassin with an Initiator level, but the critter lacks natural Initiator levels, Spellcasting or a Death Attack; a more apt comparison might be a straight Rogue 10 with 1 level of Shadowdancer for HiPS, rather than mixing and matching 3+ classes with wildly variant abilities to approximate the Naztharune's RHD power level. Working backwards like that, and trying to fit a bunch of eclectic abilities to become ''equivalent'' to the natural RHD features seems like it would be inconsistent at best in application. I strongly recommend option 1 on that basis.
-
Re: The LA-assignment thread V: Escape from LA
Quote:
Option #1: All monsters are to be rated so that they are more-or-less equal to a comparable PC class of equal ECL.
This one.
And if we then need to go back over past monsters its just a bonus :P
-
Re: The LA-assignment thread V: Escape from LA
Put me down for option 2: an ogre being rated higher than an ethergaunt just seems dissonant to me.
-
Re: The LA-assignment thread V: Escape from LA
Option 1. The RHD and monster abilities combo of a monster are a forced prestige class and comparing them to a comparable class makes the most sense.
-
Re: The LA-assignment thread V: Escape from LA
I vote for option 1 with the caveat that monsters most equivalent to lower tier classes should be given some extra leniency. I still object to the troll getting +1.
-
Re: The LA-assignment thread V: Escape from LA
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Inevitability
[B][SIZE=4]
Option #1: All monsters are to be rated so that they are more-or-less equal to a comparable PC class of equal ECL.
Option #2: All monsters are to be rated so that they are more-or-less equal to a tier 3 class of equal ECL.
Clarification question for option 1, 'comparable PC class of equal EC' does that mean lets compare to a straight class, or to a build, like for low level beatsticks monster we compare to straight fighter6 or water orc barb2/warblade4?
I feel these are two very dramatically different comparisons...
-
Re: The LA-assignment thread V: Escape from LA
I'd rather have option 2 because it has more internal consistency. But in practical terms establishing the baseline would be impossibly contentious, leading to page upon page of circular debates for every monster that isn't a clear -0. And not everyone wants their game focused on Tier 3 classes anyway -- that just happens to be a common meeting point. So I'm voting for Option 1.
-
Re: The LA-assignment thread V: Escape from LA
Option 1. Makes most sense to me.
-
Re: The LA-assignment thread V: Escape from LA
I also vote for Option #1. It does leave some uncertainties about how benchmarks are selected, but there's really nothing for it: there's always going to be some guesswork and some error in a theoretical exercise like this.
-
Re: The LA-assignment thread V: Escape from LA
If we end up with #1, then we can always hold a new vote for benchmarks :P
Quote:
I vote for option 1 with the caveat that monsters most equivalent to lower tier classes should be given some extra leniency. I still object to the troll getting +1.
Yeah... i also think it should have gotten a +2 at the least :P
-
Re: The LA-assignment thread V: Escape from LA
Quote:
Originally Posted by
lord_khaine
If we end up with #1, then we can always hold a new vote for benchmarks :P
Yeah... i also think it should have gotten a +2 at the least :P
Pretty sure she meant it should be +0 but hey I might be wrong...
-
Re: The LA-assignment thread V: Escape from LA
Vastly out voted, but I prefer option 2. I firmly believe all creatures should be measured against the same base line.
-
Re: The LA-assignment thread V: Escape from LA
I think I have to go with option 2. I don't particularly like the idea of saying "It's a melee brute, it's supposed to be weak" or "it's a caster, it's fine if it's strong". The tier system sorts by type pretty well. Casters go on top, half-casters in the middle, and non-casters go on the bottom. Saying we'll gauge monsters against classes that try to do something similar is just putting a tax on bruiser monsters and discounting monsters with casting.
-
Re: The LA-assignment thread V: Escape from LA
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TiaC
Saying we'll gauge monsters against classes that try to do something similar is just putting a tax on bruiser monsters and discounting monsters with casting.
Exactly my thoughts on the subject.
-
Re: The LA-assignment thread V: Escape from LA
I will chime in for option 2. Mainly because option 1 will swing A LOT depending on the monster in question and will throw most bruiser monsters under the LA bus.
Problem with option 1 is something like this: Monster tries to be a full caster but is something like 1-2 CL behind it's HD in exchange for a bunch of non-spellcasting goodies. Will be compared to Wiz/Cleric/Druid and likely not gain a LA. Monster is a fighter but straight up better. Will probably have a LA assigned not because it's OP but because it's better than an under-preforming class.
TLDR: Option 2 is the only option for baseline because said baseline dosen't change for every monster.
-
Re: The LA-assignment thread V: Escape from LA
Also, say we have a 11HD monster that casts as a cleric 3 levels lower but has some nice stats and decent but not great abilities. If we compare it to a cleric, it's LA +0. If we compare it to an adept, it's easily +2. What are we supposed to do there?
-
Re: The LA-assignment thread V: Escape from LA
A problem with option 2 is that spellcasting monsters became very uncompetitive with normal PC race casters, since the monsters will be measured against tier 3 while the normal casters can be as tier 1/0 as they want to be. It's not this thread's place to try to rebalance the entire game, so you'll just have to measure Ogres against Barbarians, and if Barbarians are too weak for your game, you shouldn't play an Ogre (or it should get the same boosts your DM gave the Barbs, if any).
-
Re: The LA-assignment thread V: Escape from LA
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Thurbane
Exactly my thoughts on the subject.
So a monster that say had the exact same stats as a base race with all the special class features and spells of a druid would by option 2 be given an LA of +1 and higher since druid is tier 1 and so even if it is well balanced compared to a straight druid it still deserves an LA because it is better than a tier 3 totemist.
This is the exact reason why Nymph took what 6 or 7 pages of debates because everyone thought it was unreasonable to compare it to a druid. Similarly Formian queen took like 15 pages because everyone thought it was inappropriate to compare it to a sorcerer.
You end up with just as big if not a bigger swing with option 2 because you are erroneously chastising anything that is comparable to tier 1, even if it is completely reasonable and competitive with a tier 1 class because it is 'too powerful for tier 3'. That is the ridiculousness of comparing LA to tiers, the fact is a I can take any tier class and not be shot in the knee because I take it, but you are claiming oh since this monster is comparable to a tier 1 you should get hit with the nerf bat because the fighter can't keep up.
This is also why we should look at builds and a few of them at that to give a comparison since comparing to an adept seems silly and a straight cleric might be wrong as well, in cases like an outsider with full bab cleric casting a few levels behind, perhaps a cleric/Ordained Champion is a better point or something like that...
-
Re: The LA-assignment thread V: Escape from LA
Quote:
Originally Posted by
liquidformat
This is also why we should look at builds and a few of them at that to give a comparison since comparing to an adept seems silly and a straight cleric might be wrong as well, in cases like an outsider with full bab cleric casting a few levels behind, perhaps a cleric/Ordained Champion is a better point or something like that...
Kinda this. In the case of something with casting that is behind a few levels, like the Ak'chasar with 17 RHD and 12th level Sorcerer casting; instead of comparing it to a straight Sorcerer, compare it to a build with Sorcerer 12 casting and 5 or so levels with no casting, such that together they most closely approximate everything else in the package. (bad example with Turning above its RHD and eclectic SLAs, but the first one I thought of.)
-
Re: The LA-assignment thread V: Escape from LA
I can't see voting for option 2 unless you're playing in a pure Tier 3 environment class wise or plan to apply LA to characters playing wizards and clerics.
The goal of LA (as I see it) is to bring characters using those races into line with similar characters using normal races, not power-balance the whole environment.
So I vote for Option #1.
-
Re: The LA-assignment thread V: Escape from LA
I honestly just can't get my head around a spellcasting monster that is roughly on a par with a Wizard getting LA +0; and a melee brute who's better than a Fighter getting LA +1 or +2.
Maybe that's just me.
-
Re: The LA-assignment thread V: Escape from LA
I choose option 1. My experience is that we don't need more tier debates, nor rebalance the entire tier imbalances. If you'd like to rebalance the system, be my guest, the Homebrew Design forum is right there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TiaC
Also, say we have a 11HD monster that casts as a cleric 3 levels lower but has some nice stats and decent but not great abilities. If we compare it to a cleric, it's LA +0. If we compare it to an adept, it's easily +2. What are we supposed to do there?
The solution is to not play an NPC class. You'd think that they are labeled as such so that we don't get into discussions like this, but we still somehow got here.