The LA-assignment thread II: Where The Em Dash Doesn't Exist

[danielxcutter]

that was easy, almost as easy as saying that a wizard is better then a monk (assuming similar levels of optimization)

Well, +5 means that they won't get 9th-level spells(not that Druid 9ths are that good except for Shapechange), and +1 means they're at the same ECL as a 7th-level Druid. So yeah, I guess that part was easy.

[The Blade Wolf]

Will say, all this discussion as made me wanna try out a Druid character some time.

[Celestia]

Will say, all this discussion as made me wanna try out a Druid character some time.

Druids are pretty nifty. It would be especially fun to be a tibbit druid. You'd be a cat that can turn into a halfling that can turn into animals. :p

Lycanthrope tibbit druid! :O

[danielxcutter]

Druids are pretty nifty. It would be especially fun to be a tibbit druid. You'd be a cat that can turn into a halfling that can turn into animals. :p

Lycanthrope tibbit druid! :O

By Gygax's dice, that's hilarious.

[Thurbane]

I don't want to stir up any more arguments, but I'd like to comment on before our next entry:

I incidentally agree with a higher LA than +2 - maybe +3, more likely +4. Comparing to a high-OP druid who makes good use of wild shape to turn into ridiculous forms isn't the best way you can go about this, even if druid is the best comparison point in general.

It would be if you were looking at tree climbing ability. Should LA be based on general ability or their most similar role? I think it should be general ability. Not everyone will want to do the obvious. There are different specializations in all kinds of ways for a variety of PC classes just as with monsters.

Bless you both (and also TotallyNotEvil), I don't feel so much like an island now.

I normally try to be flexible and accept other's viewpoints, but I kinda irks me when some people just can't accept "agree to disagree" as an outcome, and keep replying with comments to the effect of "You're stupid, and you're doing it wrong!".

Also slightly OT, I feel like this forum is, in general, becoming a little bit less friendly as a community recently. If I've contributed to that, I apologize.

[The Blade Wolf]

I would say that there was no much in the way of 'You're stupid, and you're doing it wrong!' posts. Simply a lot of people who significantly disagreed on the power of the Druid's Wildshape and Animal Companion class features.

[Thurbane]

I would say that there was no much in the way of 'You're stupid, and you're doing it wrong!' posts. Simply a lot of people who significantly disagreed on the power of the Druid's Wildshape and Animal Companion class features.

At the risk of reigniting the debate, just as a matter of record, I was never actually disagreeing with anyone on the power level of Druids - I was simply disagreeing with the methodology of using them as a baseline for LA.

I always make an effort to try and be polite when in a debate with people on forums, I just felt that courtesy wasn't being returned in some cases. It can sometimes be easy to misread tone or intent in a text-only medium, however. Perhaps I was being somewhat thin-skinned.

[The Blade Wolf]

I was simply disagreeing with the methodology of using them as a baseline for LA.

Noted. Though I do think you were in the minority in that regard.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Holy crap, guys. I leave this thread alone for one afternoon and this happens?

I agree. I have my own opinions, but I wouldn't express them even if it wasn't for the quoted post, because I do not want to get involved in this crap. And I'm normally all for a good debate.
This was not that.

[Inevitability]

Ogre

Like most giants, ogres are brutes interesting only for being high-strength humanoids. Unlike most giants, ogres have sufficiently few RHD (4, to be precise) to be still somewhat interesting as PCs. Their HD are poor, their stats reasonably good, and their advancement possibilities reasonable.

To be honest, it seems to me as if ogres are too strong for +0 LA, but too weak for +1. +0 will put them at an offensive advantage even when compared to mineral warrior water orcs (as well as a HD-based one), but +1 would be overcompensating for its stats: a moderately optimized goliath barbarian would be at a significant advantage in such a case.

In the end, I'm going to assign +0 LA. While ogres may be initially on the stronger side, this LA will make for more balanced PCs over the course of a campaign. If your game uses LA buyoff, I recommend +1 instead.

Discuss away!

Also, ogre mages are next.

[Jormengand]

I think the CR lower than HD - and IME a pretty fair CR - says a lot, and I'm pretty sure that anything above +0 is pretty hard to justify. You lose a point of base attack bonus and four levels of class features, as well as practically all your skill points, and in return you get some strength and con and are bigger (though being bigger isn't strictly beneficial).

(Also, am I the only one who thinks that the artist's signature looks like "Fish", followed by a skeletal fish, and is wondering just how deliberate or otherwise that is?)

[Celestia]

Ogres are just so incredibly boring. Yeah, strength and size are nice, but that's all they are getting. Class features are better. +0 is fair.

[javcs]

I'd agree with +0. They've got good racial modifiers for Strength (+10) and Con (+4), but Dex -2, Int -4, and Cha -4.
Those penalties hurt - and limit how much they can benefit from going into the non-Core martial types that have class features that are powered by mental ability scores.

Their only option for casting is Wis (+0), and that means going Divine, but they're 4 levels behind, and have a Cha penalty, reducing their options with Cleric (ie, turning and DMM), and their physical ability scores are good enough that Wild Shape doesn't help them as much until the higher/later level Wild Shape options, which they're behind on.


I could even see a marginal case for -0, as they're got subpar RHD, and relatively poor options for class levels, which they're 4 levels behind on anyways.

But +0 is fair, and hard to argue that it should be anything else.

--

The artist's signature looks like "Fisch", then the fish skeleton.

[Mystic Muse]

I think the CR lower than HD - and IME a pretty fair CR - says a lot, and I'm pretty sure that anything above +0 is pretty hard to justify. You lose a point of base attack bonus and four levels of class features, as well as practically all your skill points, and in return you get some strength and con and are bigger (though being bigger isn't strictly beneficial).

(Also, am I the only one who thinks that the artist's signature looks like "Fish", followed by a skeletal fish, and is wondering just how deliberate or otherwise that is?)

The artist's signature looks like "Fisch", then the fish skeleton.

....Hahaha, I had no idea 5hat artisymt did this artwork. It's the signature of a guy who seems pretty cool to me named Scott M. Fischer.

http://www.fischart.com/ here's his website. I got a few Magic: The Gathering cards signed by him.

[Blue Jay]

I haven't actually participated in this thread yet, but I've been lurking the whole time.

I'm curious about the comparison between the ogre and the centaur. I would have pegged the two as pretty equal for use in melee builds, but you felt the centaur was worth a higher starting ECL. The standout ability for the centaur seems to be the damage benefits with the lance; then I guess a series of minor comparison points favor the centaur (monstrous humanoid is somewhat better than giant, ogre's mental stats and Dex suffer, increased carrying capacity, etc). On the other hand, the ogre has a few things going for it: reach, more natural armor, and slightly better Strength. Most of the other stuff is pretty equivalent.

I mean, I agree that the centaur is the better option overall, but do you think the difference is dramatic enough to warrant a difference in starting ECL?

[Thurbane]

The Str and Con boosts are nice for melee, as is large size. +5 natural AC isn't shabby.

But the hits to Int and Cha are pretty severe, and giant HD aren't good (medium BAB and one good save).

If you were to go Cleric (or other Wis based caster), you'll never be getting 9ths (without shenanigans) due to your RHD.

I can live with LA +0 here.

Looking forward to Ogre Mages - one of my sentimental favourites. The got hosed in the CR stakes, maybe we can do better by them with LA.

[RedWarlock]

(Also, am I the only one who thinks that the artist's signature looks like "Fish", followed by a skeletal fish, and is wondering just how deliberate or otherwise that is?)

Yeah, that's deliberate. His name is Scott Fischer, and he adds the fishbones to his signature in his other art, too.

Oops, ninja'd. That's what I get for jumping on the art-related comment without finishing the replies.

[Zancloufer]

Signature does look like a fish.

On the note of Ogres: +10 str and +5 NA is VERY nice, but it's overall only a +4 to stat total and giant RHD suck. d8 HP, Good Fort, 3/4 BaB and 2 skill points a level, if you have 14+ Int before than penalty bombs it out of existence.

LA +0 for sure, it might even be on the edge of LA -0 if it wasn't for the +10 Str and Large size giving them at least some lolwut niche in wielding massive weapons.

[Inevitability]

I haven't actually participated in this thread yet, but I've been lurking the whole time.

I'm curious about the comparison between the ogre and the centaur. I would have pegged the two as pretty equal for use in melee builds, but you felt the centaur was worth a higher starting ECL. The standout ability for the centaur seems to be the damage benefits with the lance; then I guess a series of minor comparison points favor the centaur (monstrous humanoid is somewhat better than giant, ogre's mental stats and Dex suffer, increased carrying capacity, etc). On the other hand, the ogre has a few things going for it: reach, more natural armor, and slightly better Strength. Most of the other stuff is pretty equivalent.

I mean, I agree that the centaur is the better option overall, but do you think the difference is dramatic enough to warrant a difference in starting ECL?

I agree the two seem pretty close, but Races of Faerun has a rule that puts centaurs majorly ahead.

Racial Feats: None, but centaurs can acquire the Spirited Charge and Trample feats (ignoring the prerequisites) and apply the benefits to their own melee attacks.

That's right: Spirited Charge without prerequisites. That means that for the low, low, cost of one feat, centaurs can take what's essentially Headlong Rush, but better.

Sure, a normal character could take spirited charge, but that means getting a mount which cost money to purchase, equip and maintain, and can easily be killed, controlled, or incapacitated. Not to mention that this normal character would have spent two reasonably useless feats on the prerequisites already.

[Zale]

I always forget that Ogres are Giants. I always think they're Monstrous Humanoids. Which, amusingly, is probably a better chassis than Giant.

[danielxcutter]

I always forget that Ogres are Giants. I always think they're Monstrous Humanoids. Which, amusingly, is probably a better chassis than Giant.

Monstrous humanoids have full BAB, so probably.

[GreatWyrmGold]

I've never understood why giants and humanoids are different types. Does charm person have a "you must be this short" clause in it somewhere?

[danielxcutter]

I've never understood why giants and humanoids are different types. Does charm person have a "you must be this short" clause in it somewhere?

Well, it could have some biological reason - which is why Charm Monster is higher; it has to work on all monsters regardless of creature type.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Well, it could have some biological reason - which is why Charm Monster is higher; it has to work on all monsters regardless of creature type.

I might find that more plausible if there were more Medium giants and Large humanoids and so on, but every giant is large+ and every humanoid is medium-. It's just weird.

Of course, creature types are kinda arbitrary in the first place...but these are more arbitrary than most.

[Celestia]

Yeah, humanoid/giant/monstrous humanoid I'd completely arbitrary. There are really only minor cosmetic differences between them.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Monstrous humanoid I can understand; they're like the magical beast to humanoids' animal.

[Celestia]

Monstrous humanoid I can understand; they're like the magical beast to humanoids' animal.

Lizardfolk, gnolls, and troglodytes are all humanoid, while minotaurs and harpies are monstrous humanoid. Seems rather arbitrary to me.

[Inevitability]

I might find that more plausible if there were more Medium giants and Large humanoids and so on, but every giant is large+ and every humanoid is medium-. It's just weird.

Of course, creature types are kinda arbitrary in the first place...but these are more arbitrary than most.

Actually, there's at least one giant that's naturally medium, and dragon magazine gave us a Large humanoid, the quinametin (issue 317, page 65).

If your game doesn't use dragon magazine, that's even better. In that case, the various Shinomen nagas from Oriental Adventures never got updated, meaning there exist a few Large and even one Huge humanoid race.

[Caelestion]

I believe that Pathfinder made giant into a humanoid subtype, which certainly makes sense.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Lizardfolk, gnolls, and troglodytes are all humanoid, while minotaurs and harpies are monstrous humanoid. Seems rather arbitrary to me.

I never said it was perfect in practice, just that the categories themselves made some sense. (And the divisions between animal and magical beast get muddled sometimes...)

Actually, there's at least one giant that's naturally medium, and dragon magazine gave us a Large humanoid, the quinametin (issue 317, page 65).

Oh.
Weird that it only shows up there.