The LA-assignment thread III: Now in HD!

[Morphic tide]

Speaking of badly-done LA, I think that Dragons should be compared to Duskblade, Bard or Psychic Warrior, maybe Swordsage in a pinch. Because that's a lot closer to how you'd build a Dragon than a primary caster is.

Basically, treat Dragons as canned gishes, not spellcasters or beatsticks. It's much more appropriate to what they optimize towards. Just because it's obvious to take some levels in a caster class doesn’t mean it should be compared to a caster build of that kind, because PRCing for gishing is even more obvious in a lot of these situations.

Edit: I suppose this serves as a partial example, because the pile of -0s for Dragons essentially comes down to "they such at being full casters"

Dragons: More like Duskblade or PsyWar than Sorcerers.

[Inevitability]

Speaking of badly-done LA, I think that Dragons should be compared to Duskblade, Bard or Psychic Warrior, maybe Swordsage in a pinch. Because that's a lot closer to how you'd build a Dragon than a primary caster is.

Basically, treat Dragons as canned gishes, not spellcasters or beatsticks. It's much more appropriate to what they optimize towards. Just because it's obvious to take some levels in a caster class doesn’t mean it should be compared to a caster build of that kind, because PRCing for gishing is even more obvious in a lot of these situations.

Edit: I suppose this serves as a partial example, because the pile of -0s for Dragons essentially comes down to "they such at being full casters"

Dragons: More like Duskblade or PsyWar than Sorcerers.

Could you give some examples of dragons you feel should not have been assigned -0?

Let me guarantee you: I definitely didn't take a single glance at dragons and dismiss them for being poor primary casters. Fact is that their incredibly high amounts of RHD, combined with a lack of any true racial features until higher age categories, make it very hard to get any kind of viable dragon PC going when you could also be any other class.

It's just that I had over a hundred of the things to rate, and I didn't want to say the same 'bad for its ECL, move on' every time, so I may have made some comments that implied I was rating dragons solely for their spellcasting. If so, I apologize.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Let's take an arbitrary dragon—a young gold dragon. (I said arbitrary, not random.) 14 HD, with 133 hit points, several attacks (with the primary attack having a +20 bonus), and a base AC of 22. Also flight, swimming, alternate-forming, and a couple of breath weapons.
Now let's look at a half-built 14th-level barbarian from the DMG. 124 hit points, AC 24, a few attacks with the highest being +19. No flight, no breath weapons, and that's including (most of) your magic items. But wait! The barbarian also has greater rages, damage reduction, uncanny dodging, a few neat defensive abilities, and oposeable thumbs (that they don't need to sacrifice the rest of their class features for). The dragon has more cool abilities, but the barbarian has more practical abilities.
Maybe its melee abilities would stack up better against a duskblade...but 14th-level duskblades have 4th-level spells (plus several abilities which let them do gishing even better, e.g. arcane channeling and quick-casting), while the young gold dragon just learned to cast their first spells. Also a couple types of area effects.

If (classless) dragons are gishes, they're weighted very heavily on the martial side.

[Jormengand]

Can you point to when this happened?

I remember it being a problem with nymph, where because it had druid casting, it was compared to a druid... but it also had jumped up divine-grace-not-called-divine-grace and a bunch of charisma and a load of other useful abilities, so if you stuck it on a battle dancer even if it didn't have any racial spellcasting it would easily be worth more than the +2 it got, just because it would have been compared to something it works well with but is a lot weaker than druid.

[Lans]

Let's take an arbitrary dragon—a young gold dragon. (I said arbitrary, not random.) 14 HD, with 133 hit points, several attacks (with the primary attack having a +20 bonus), and a base AC of 22. Also flight, swimming, alternate-forming, and a couple of breath weapons.
Now let's look at a half-built 14th-level barbarian from the DMG. 124 hit points, AC 24, a few attacks with the highest being +19. No flight, no breath weapons, and that's including (most of) your magic items. But wait! The barbarian also has greater rages, damage reduction, uncanny dodging, a few neat defensive abilities, and oposeable thumbs (that they don't need to sacrifice the rest of their class features for). The dragon has more cool abilities, but the barbarian has more practical abilities.

That barbarian has the elite array, a magic weapon, armor, ring of protection and amulet of natural armor.

[Morphic tide]

That barbarian has the elite array, a magic weapon, armor, ring of protection and amulet of natural armor.

Of which the weapon is largely redundant and can be swapped for paying off the extra cost of armor, then the other things can be used by the dragon. Presumably after the ground-bound and shorter-reach Barbarian is killed by the Dragon. Of course, the size increases from age categories causes some issues with staying armored, but I'm pretty sure there"s some work around for the problem.

[lord_khaine]

Let's take an arbitrary dragon—a young gold dragon. (I said arbitrary, not random.) 14 HD, with 133 hit points, several attacks (with the primary attack having a +20 bonus), and a base AC of 22. Also flight, swimming, alternate-forming, and a couple of breath weapons.
Now let's look at a half-built 14th-level barbarian from the DMG. 124 hit points, AC 24, a few attacks with the highest being +19. No flight, no breath weapons, and that's including (most of) your magic items. But wait! The barbarian also has greater rages, damage reduction, uncanny dodging, a few neat defensive abilities, and oposeable thumbs (that they don't need to sacrifice the rest of their class features for). The dragon has more cool abilities, but the barbarian has more practical abilities.
Maybe its melee abilities would stack up better against a duskblade...but 14th-level duskblades have 4th-level spells (plus several abilities which let them do gishing even better, e.g. arcane channeling and quick-casting), while the young gold dragon just learned to cast their first spells. Also a couple types of area effects.

If (classless) dragons are gishes, they're weighted very heavily on the martial side.

Its also a bad idea to compare a monster without class levels to a base race with. Generally those levels are quite frontloaded, and it gives a clearer picture to compare a young gold dragon barbarian 1 to a barbarian 15.

Of which the weapon is largely redundant and can be swapped for paying off the extra cost of armor, then the other things can be used by the dragon. Presumably after the ground-bound and shorter-reach Barbarian is killed by the Dragon. Of course, the size increases from age categories causes some issues with staying armored, but I'm pretty sure there"s some work around for the problem.

For that matter the weapon could be replaced with an amulet of mighty fist, or something like that.
And adjusting a chain shirt to a dragon cost nothing in a PC budget, and brings a massive AC increase.

[Daedroth]

I remember it being a problem with nymph, where because it had druid casting, it was compared to a druid... but it also had jumped up divine-grace-not-called-divine-grace and a bunch of charisma and a load of other useful abilities, so if you stuck it on a battle dancer even if it didn't have any racial spellcasting it would easily be worth more than the +2 it got, just because it would have been compared to something it works well with but is a lot weaker than druid.

The problem is the following, we want to quantify how good the monster is, and judging by a single tier unleashes a problem:

If we take Tier 1 as reference we would end on a point where a lot of people will say that a non-spellcaster won't compete even at LA-500. How an ogre compares to a wizard? Even if you give orges ECL 1 people will say that being unable to cast sleep, charm person, color spray and things like that the wizard is better because the ogre just kills thigns with a stick.

If we take another tier some monsters would take an unfair LA just because its an spellcaster, wich would be totally uncalled for as we don't assign wizards LA just by being wizards.

In other words, you cannot compare and assign a LA with the same stick to people who do diferents jobs (How many damage and hp is worth a Teleport? How many Str modifier is worth a Web spell? Its impossible to actually quantify it and ends up in the realm of "just your opinion")


So what for me the best measuring stick is not class bassed but niche bassed:
- Its a true fullcaster? Compate it to the closer fullcaster and how does his job. His better caster than a caster (Ghaele or Driders for example)? Positive LA. Performs equaly good as a caster? LA+0. Performs poor as a Caster? LA-0 or find him another niche.
- Its a beatstick? Compare to beatsticks... including martial based clerics or even shapeshifted druids. Compare how well does his job as a beatstick, not in what can do apart from this, but just the beatstick part. Is a better melee fighter than a DMM-cleric or a Warblade despite not being able to cast miracle, heal or resurrection? Then LA is in order.
- Another niche? Compare to the best classes for that niche and base you analysis only on how well does this job, no matter what other jobs performs the class or the char.
- No niche (or very unseless one) because the monster is truly a pushover? Just LA-0

So the LA becomes a measuring of how good is the monster at his job, not what this job actually is

[Jormengand]

The trouble is that the nymph is compared to a druid because giving it druid casting made it okay at the druid's job, but it never stopped being amazing at the monk's job. It actually lost LA because it was okay at a job that's actually useful (casting spells) but it never stopped being a no-brainer at any LA below 4 for a high-level monk whose job is to survive anything that you can throw at it - and in fact, having spells so it can do something with its life actually helps it, of course. So it lost LA because it became more powerful.

(Nymph, incidentally, isn't unique but is kinda the poster-kid for this kind of effect.)

[Lans]

Its also a bad idea to compare a monster without class levels to a base race with. Generally those levels are quite frontloaded, and it gives a clearer picture to compare a young gold dragon barbarian 1 to a barbarian 15.

Related question What is the best weapon using form for the dragons alternate form ability?

[Malimar]

My houserule is "divide listed LA by 2, rounded down, unless the LA is already 1, in which case the final LA is 1". I've wanted for awhile to compare Inevitability's results with the results of my house rule, and today I sat down, copied down Inevitability's charts and all the listed LAs into Excel, and mathed it.

By far the biggest group seems to be the ones that originally had LA:--, and are thus unaffected by my houserule (I didn't bother to check Savage Species and Libris Mortis, which did update a few LA:-- monsters to have LAs via savage classes).

The next-biggest group is the ones with LAs in the general vicinity of 5-7, which Inevitability ruled as -0 or +0 or, in rare cases, +1.

Of all the ones with listed LAs, including that second group (but not the first): taking the absolute value of my houserule's result minus Inevitability's result (counting -0 and +0 as the same, because that's what Excel did when I ctrl-v'd and I was too lazy to fiddle with it), the results turn out to differ by an average of 1.1 and a bit (dropping LA:+0 races intended for PC use makes the result a bit worse).

Which is a little worse than I expected, but good enough for me to keep that house rule in place. (If anybody winds up asking to play a creature with no listed LA, I'll probably wind up using this thread's recommendation for that. And, for that matter, using my houserule for monsters Inevitability hasn't reviewed and using Inevitability's numbers for the ones he has reviewed probably wouldn't be at all a bad plan, though it's probably not what I'm going to do.)

[Daedroth]

The trouble is that the nymph is compared to a druid because giving it druid casting made it okay at the druid's job, but it never stopped being amazing at the monk's job. It actually lost LA because it was okay at a job that's actually useful (casting spells) but it never stopped being a no-brainer at any LA below 4 for a high-level monk whose job is to survive anything that you can throw at it - and in fact, having spells so it can do something with its life actually helps it, of course. So it lost LA because it became more powerful.

(Nymph, incidentally, isn't unique but is kinda the poster-kid for this kind of effect.)

Maybe is amazing at monk's job (Mostly beatstick, being a monk is not a diferent job, unless you consider waste of space a job)... but is more amazing at that job (Big Stupid Fighter or Glass Canon, it doesn't matter) than a warblade, a crusader, a MmF or a DMM Cleric? Thats the question, because if any of these is better at BSF/GlassCanon than a Nymph (with levels in whatever you want), it uncalled for to give her LA if you don0t give any of the above one.

[GreatWyrmGold]

The trouble is that the nymph is compared to a druid because giving it druid casting made it okay at the druid's job, but it never stopped being amazing at the monk's job.

Monks have a job?

...a high-level monk whose job is to survive anything that you can throw at it...

I'm not sure that counts as a job. Haven't we had a conversation at least a dozen times over the course of this thread to the effect of "Standing there, unhurtable, without being able to do anything that makes enemies want to take you out isn't inherently useful"?

[Jormengand]

I'm not sure that counts as a job. Haven't we had a conversation at least a dozen times over the course of this thread to the effect of "Standing there, unhurtable, without being able to do anything that makes enemies want to take you out isn't inherently useful"?

Yeah, except that Nymph also gives you something to do and they lose LA because they do that.

[javcs]

The trouble is that the nymph is compared to a druid because giving it druid casting made it okay at the druid's job, but it never stopped being amazing at the monk's job. It actually lost LA because it was okay at a job that's actually useful (casting spells) but it never stopped being a no-brainer at any LA below 4 for a high-level monk whose job is to survive anything that you can throw at it - and in fact, having spells so it can do something with its life actually helps it, of course. So it lost LA because it became more powerful.

(Nymph, incidentally, isn't unique but is kinda the poster-kid for this kind of effect.)

Any Nymph who takes levels in monk is taking a subpar option.
Is there a Monk/Druid PRC? Maybe then a Monk dip would be not a total waste, but still, druid abilities outweigh monk abilities.

Monks have a job?

Monks don't have a job that anyone else couldn't realistically do better.

I'm not sure that counts as a job.

It doesn't, IMO.

Haven't we had a conversation at least a dozen times over the course of this thread to the effect of "Standing there, unhurtable, without being able to do anything that makes enemies want to take you out isn't inherently useful"?

We have indeed.



"Not dying" only goes so far. If "not dying" is not paired with any ability to attract hostile actions, then "not dying" is useless, because the enemy isn't going to be targeting you as a primary, and will only hit you with secondary effects or primary effects after everyone else (who could actively contribute to hurting the enemy) is down.

Being hard to kill doesn't matter when you're at the bottom of the target queue - if you're being targeted, your side has already lost.


There is a reason that in computer games, the tanks tend to have abilities to draw aggro and/or otherwise force enemies to target them in exclusion of other actions. Sure, they're really good at not dying, but they've also got abilities to make their proficiency at not dying actually matter.


For Example:
Stick a Tarrasque next to, say, a Pit Fiend or Balor. Pretty much everyone is going to ignore the Tarrasque until the Pit Fiend or Balor is dealt with. Why? The Tarrasque is hard to kill (moderately), but it can't do much in the time it takes to stop the Pit Fiend/Balor, who is probably effectively harder to kill, and can certainly do quite a bit more in whatever time you give it.






--

Honestly, I still think that Nymphs probably have too much LA.
Saying they make better Monks than they do Druids is a bit like saying a Ghaele Eladrin makes a better Monk than it does Cleric, IMO. Or an Aranea makes a better Monk than it does Sorcerer. Or a Rakshasa makes a better Monk than Sorcerer.
Sure, they're better than a baseline Monk of their ECL. So what - Monks suck. Casting as a full-list Full Caster is a whole lot more useful.

Any creature with significant racial casting is probably going to be advanced in such a way to advance that racial casting, be it as a primary caster of that type or as more of gish (or other casting hybrid).


Would I take a Nymph (ECL 9) / Monk Y over a Monk (9+Y)? Sure. But I'd also take a Nymph (ECL 9) / pretty much any PC class (and some NPC classes) Y over a Monk (9+Y). That's not a hard choice.
Would I take a Nymph (ECL 9) / Druid Y over a Monk 9+Y or a Nymph (ECL 9)/Monk Y? Is this a serious question? It's like asking "do you like breathing"? Of course the Nymph/Druid gets taken over the Monk-related Options.


For that matter, you could probably package the class features of a Monk 20 into a template, and it probably wouldn't be worth more than a couple LA.

Hell, arguably, the only reason a Monk 20 would be preferred over a Nymph with no class levels is because of PC wealth, and the gear the Monk would (presumably) have. Realistically, I'd prefer to shank the Monk 20 in the back, loot the corpse, and give the Nymph a cut.

---

Yeah, except that Nymph also gives you something to do and they lose LA because they do that.

Why do you insist on comparing the Nymph to Monks? Monks are one of the weakest and least useful/contributing classes out there, whereas the Nymph has racial casting of a Druid 7 and only 6 Fey HD. Why do you refuse to compare the Nymph to the logical advancement option - Druid?


Creatures should be compared to what would be associated classes for them, not non-associated classes. Nymphs would have Druid as their associated class; Monk would be non-associated.


Edit: There's a case to be made about what we should be comparing the beatsticks to - Barbarians or ToB, but that's its own discussion, IMO.

[Jormengand]

Why do you refuse to compare the Nymph to the logical advancement option - Druid?

I think we just had a discussion about that - because that causes their racial spellcasting, a feature that does nothing but make them stronger, to lose them LA.

Notably, almost anyone who takes a class which is not called "Druid" is taking a subpar option. That doesn't mean that everything should be compared to druids. In fact, that's a reason why we shouldn't compare things to druids as a matter of course, because people don't play things that are that strong on average anyway.

[Blue Jay]

I'm not sure that counts as a job. Haven't we had a conversation at least a dozen times over the course of this thread to the effect of "Standing there, unhurtable, without being able to do anything that makes enemies want to take you out isn't inherently useful"?

The nymph monk is just an example that represents a principle, so don't get too hung up on the details.

The point is that, even if this "survivor" niche isn't very useful, a nymph with a monk dip is still better at it than a standard-race monk. And, on top of that, the nymph also has other abilities that are much more useful than a monk's other abilities.

Just because niche X is less useful or less powerful than niche Y, it still doesn't make niche X a less valid point of comparison. Inevitability has basically chosen to pick the monster's "best" niche as its point of comparison, which is a reasonable and pragmatic choice; but not everybody chooses to play for the "best" niche, and an LA based on the best niche is not necessarily going to be appropriate if the monster is built for a different niche.

We'll never be able to account for all the nuances like this in a project of this scale, so I disagree with Jormengand that it's a major flaw with the project; but I do agree that it's an imperfection. I still think the project is useful, in spite of its imperfections.

[javcs]

I think we just had a discussion about that - because that causes their racial spellcasting, a feature that does nothing but make them stronger, to lose them LA.

Notably, almost anyone who takes a class which is not called "Druid" is taking a subpar option. That doesn't mean that everything should be compared to druids. In fact, that's a reason why we shouldn't compare things to druids as a matter of course, because people don't play things that are that strong on average anyway.

How do Nymphs "Loose LA"?

Seriously, how?


No, not everything should be compared to Druids (or other T1 casters, for that matter). No one is saying that was ever a realistic proposal except you.
However, if a class has racial spellcasting, seeing how it compares to various builds of that spellcasting class is a logical and reasonable point of comparison.

Against, comparing Like to Like (monsters with what would be associated classes) is reasonable, IMO.


I would expect that most people who play Nymphs would probably play a Druid if Nymphs were off the table. Not a Monk.

The nymph monk is just an example that represents a principle, so don't get too hung up on the details.

The point is that, even if this "survivor" niche isn't very useful, a nymph with a monk dip is still better at it than a standard-race monk. And, on top of that, the nymph also has other abilities that are much more useful than a monk's other abilities.

Just because niche X is less useful or less powerful than niche Y, it still doesn't make niche X a less valid point of comparison. Inevitability has basically chosen to pick the monster's "best" niche as its point of comparison, which is a reasonable and pragmatic choice; but not everybody chooses to play for the "best" niche, and an LA based on the best niche is not necessarily going to be appropriate if the monster is built for a different niche.

We'll never be able to account for all the nuances like this in a project of this scale, so I disagree with Jormengand that it's a major flaw with the project; but I do agree that it's an imperfection. I still think the project is useful, in spite of its imperfections.

Comparing against the "best" niche is in many ways comparing Like to Like - comparing monsters to what would be associated classes seems reasonable.
Especially when there's significant racial spellcasting.


A Nymph(ECL 9)/Monk X is going to be better than a Monk (9+x), sure. But a Nymph (ECL 9)/Druid X is going to be better than either the Nymph/Monk or the straight Monk. Not just at proactive things, but also at surviving. So too will a standard race Druid (9+X).
Druid 7 is better and more survivable than Monk 9.
At any rate, if I'm going to build The Last Man Standing, I'm not going to go straight Monk. At most, there might be a Monk dip (or, preferably a Swordsage dip instead of Monk), and I'd probably want a lot of cleric casting.



True, there are nuances that this thread doesn't address. However, those are nuances that the system doesn't handle all that well in the first place.
After all, ostensibly a Druid 20 and a Monk 20 are equally valuable to have in a party. However, the Druid's going to be better at pretty much everything, including surviving.
Not every RHD is the same either.


Let's be honest - "better than Monk" isn't a particularly high bar to clear.



It's quite possible that we should peg approximations for the Tier ratings on monsters or give them Niche ratings, but I suspect that for most creatures, their apparent Tier is fairly obvious, and assigning every creature Niche Ratings would be fairly monumental, even relative to giving them all new LAs.


I think it should be fairly evident that advancing a creature in ways other than its primary strengths makes it weaker, and possibly worth less LA.




Saying that Nymphs shouldn't be compared to Druids is like saying that Ghaele Eladrins shouldn't be compared to Clerics. Or that Rakshasa shouldn't be compared to Sorcerers.
If you have racial spellcasting equal to or in excess of your RHD, what possible explanation would there be to not compare to a regular spellcaster of that class?

[Jormengand]

I would expect that most people who play Nymphs would probably play a Druid if Nymphs were off the table. Not a Monk.

Yes, because they have druid casting. So the fact that they have druid casting is making them be compared to druids. So the fact that they have druid casting is causing them to lose LA.

[Celestia]

Yes, because they have druid casting. So the fact that they have druid casting is making them be compared to druids. So the fact that they have druid casting is causing them to lose LA.

The Nymph already got +3. Do you really think that getting rid of its druid casting would bump that up to +4? Or higher? Yeah right. Without that casting, it's definitely a +2. The casting is increasing its LA, not the other way around.
I mean, I thought it was only worth +2, regardless, but whatever. >_>

[Jormengand]

I mean, I thought it was only worth +2, regardless, but whatever. >_>

That's probably because you were compari...

No, never mind. Eventually someone will work it out.

[Morphic tide]

Again, I bring up how Dragons mostly get negative LA for... Actually, it looks like Inevitability just glossed right over them, rather than actually comparing to anything in particular. No numbers, just flat out saying they're -0 for almost every single one of them. Like, seriously, I just looked at the bundle of Dragon LAs and saw no actual comparisons outside a throwaway of mentioning that Dragonfire Adepts can also use Metabreath feats and have other things they can do.

I don't recall any mentions of the fact that any Medium dragon has five natural attacks, which includes the 7 RHD Red Wyrmling, and no mention was made of what can be done with this. And the fact that they are assessed as PCs means that they get all itemization options you give the comparison, because that's how WBL works. No magic item Paladin 7 compared to no magic item Red Dragon Wyrmling is... Probably not a favorable outcome for the Paladin.

Edit: The point Jorms and I are kinda trying to make is that you are automatically comparing racial casting to the actual class, when some cases are very much not having that as the direct path when you assume all classes are equal. By having Druid casting, the Nymph obliges you to compare it to actual Druids, who derive a large amount of their power from class features the Nymph lacks and thus come out less "behind" than other classes would. If you compared the Nymph to the Sorcerer or Cleric, you might arrive at a higher LA because you aren't comparing to significantly powerful class features the Nymph lacks. The point is that the Druid comparison lowers the LA because Druid, specifically, is a really bad LA comparison. Even the other tier one classes are less bad because they largely lack good class features outside of spellcasting, unlike the Druid who can be played to well within t3 competence with a Wisdom penalty off the sheer absurdity of Wildshape and Animal Companion.

[Inevitability]

Okay, semi-official announcement:

-Most of the rating problems stem from the fact that classes inherently aren't balanced against each other. Monks should be on par with druids and fighters should be on par with wizards, but we all know they aren't.
-Because of this, it's impossible to compare all monsters to a single class and be done with it. Picking a high tier as a baseline will result in nearly everything getting -0 LA, whereas picking a low tier will result in monsters with casting that aren't inherently any more powerful than sorcerers being made unplayable.
-Furthermore, when comparing monsters to PCs, classes that are commonly considered underpowered (low tier 4 or less) at all or nearly all levels of optimization (fighter, samurai, ninja, monk) will not be taken into consideration, even if they would otherwise be a monster's best fit. This is because while any other class has a number of tier 3/4 builds, making a soulknife that can function as well as warblades and binders is quite problematic.
-I'm aware not all games use tier 3/4 as a balance point. However, it is a common balance point, most others are relatively close to it, and it's what's been used for this thread.

To summarize:

Monsters will be compared to the class that fits them best, with a lower bound of approximately tier 4.

This will not be changed for the foreseeable future.

[javcs]

Yes, because they have druid casting. So the fact that they have druid casting is making them be compared to druids. So the fact that they have druid casting is causing them to lose LA.

Again, how are Nymphs loosing LA?

Also, how is something with druid casting in excess of its RHD having druid as its comparison point a bad thing?

The Nymph already got +3. Do you really think that getting rid of its druid casting would bump that up to +4? Or higher? Yeah right. Without that casting, it's definitely a +2. The casting is increasing its LA, not the other way around.
I mean, I thought it was only worth +2, regardless, but whatever. >_>

Ditto. Hell, without casting, Nymph is arguably only LA +0, IMO.

That's probably because you were compari...

No, never mind. Eventually someone will work it out.

It would really aid discussion if you were to actually, y'know, clarify what you meant when asked, rather than just repeating the same thing over and over without clarifying or explaining what you mean.

Again, I bring up how Dragons mostly get negative LA for... Actually, it looks like Inevitability just glossed right over them, rather than actually comparing to anything in particular. No numbers, just flat out saying they're -0 for almost every single one of them. Like, seriously, I just looked at the bundle of Dragon LAs and saw no actual comparisons outside a throwaway of mentioning that Dragonfire Adepts can also use Metabreath feats and have other things they can do.

I don't recall any mentions of the fact that any Medium dragon has five natural attacks, which includes the 7 RHD Red Wyrmling, and no mention was made of what can be done with this. And the fact that they are assessed as PCs means that they get all itemization options you give the comparison, because that's how WBL works. No magic item Paladin 7 compared to no magic item Red Dragon Wyrmling is... Probably not a favorable outcome for the Paladin.

Ah, somewhere to make actual progress in discussion.
Dragons have a very poor ratio of abilities to RHD. In addition, they have issues using certain varieties of items, per some of the Dragon-specific books. They specifically don't have the same degree of manipulation as human hands.
Sure, the Dragon type and Dragon RHD are pretty good. However ... you have significantly fewer abilities.

The 7RHD Red Wyrmling you reference ... has a 30ft cone 2d10 fire (Ref Half) breath weapon, every 1d4 rounds. It also has a 1d8+Str Bite primary, 2 1d6+1/2Str Claw secondary, and 2 1d4+1/2Str Wing secondary natural attacks. +6 Natural Armor, Immunity to Fire, Vulnerability to Cold. 40ft base move, fly 150ft(poor maneuverability). It has Blindsense 60ft, Darkvision 120ft, and Superior Low-light Vision (x4).
It has no other abilities of note besides skill points and 3 feats. Realistically, 2 feats, since one of them should be Multi-attack, so it has a chance of hitting with the secondary attacks.

Paladin 7 has ... Detect Evil at will, Divine Grace (Cha to saves), Lay on Hands, Aura of Courage, Divine Health, Turn Undead, Spellcasting (Paladin 1st level spells, 1+bonus spell slots per day), Pokemount, Remove Disease 1/week, and Smite Evil 2/day.
Assuming the Paladin isn't using ACFs to improve/specialize.
And ignoring that Paladins are usually on the weaker end of class rankings.

The 7RHD Red Wyrmling is fairly limited in the ways it can contribute to a party. The Paladin 7 isn't that great either, but is generally more useful to a party (ignoring potential issues with the Code).
Dragon Shaman/Dragonfire Adepts have a better breath weapon, and class features to let them do things, but aren't as good in melee.

Alternatively, compare to a ToB base class 7. Red Wyrmling looks a lot less appealing, doesn't it?

Let's run them up to 20HD, Red Wyrmling 7RHD/ Barbarian? 13 compared to Paladin 20 or Barbarian 20. What you get from being a Red Wyrmling is nowhere near worth giving up 7 class levels.
Red Wyrmling 7RHD/ToB13 compared to ToB 20 ... they're closer, sure, but what you get out of being a Red Wyrmling is still not worth the 4 initiator levels and 7 class levels (including the capstone ability).

In addition, the Red Wyrmling isn't eligible for some of the relatively standard melee-type buffs (ie, Enlarge Person).


Class levels are usually more potent than RHD. As a general rule, for RHD to be worth it, you need to be getting a fair amount of abilities. Even good RHD are generally inferior to class levels.

[Lans]

The 7RHD Red Wyrmling you reference ... has a 30ft cone 2d10 fire (Ref Half) breath weapon, every 1d4 rounds. It also has a 1d8+Str Bite primary, 2 1d6+1/2Str Claw secondary, and 2 1d4+1/2Str Wing secondary natural attacks. +6 Natural Armor, Immunity to Fire, Vulnerability to Cold. 40ft base move, fly 150ft(poor maneuverability). It has Blindsense 60ft, Darkvision 120ft, and Superior Low-light Vision (x4).


Let's run them up to 20HD, Red Wyrmling 7RHD/ Barbarian? 13 compared to Paladin 20 or Barbarian 20. What you get from being a Red Wyrmling is nowhere near worth giving up 7 class levels.
.

The dragon loses 2 pts of dr and trap sense nighty tireless and indomitable rage the dragon gains 3 higher on base saves. 6 pts nat armor 6 str 4 con looks pretty even or the advantage to dragon to me


On a phone

[Nifft]

Okay, semi-official announcement:

-Most of the rating problems stem from the fact that classes inherently aren't balanced against each other. Monks should be on par with druids and fighters should be on par with wizards, but we all know they aren't.
-Because of this, it's impossible to compare all monsters to a single class and be done with it. Picking a high tier as a baseline will result in nearly everything getting -0 LA, whereas picking a low tier will result in monsters with casting that aren't inherently any more powerful than sorcerers being made unplayable.
-Furthermore, when comparing monsters to PCs, classes that are commonly considered underpowered (low tier 4 or less) at all or nearly all levels of optimization (fighter, samurai, ninja, monk) will not be taken into consideration, even if they would otherwise be a monster's best fit. This is because while any other class has a number of tier 3/4 builds, making a soulknife that can function as well as warblades and binders is quite problematic.
-I'm aware not all games use tier 3/4 as a balance point. However, it is a common balance point, most others are relatively close to it, and it's what's been used for this thread.

To summarize:

Monsters will be compared to the class that fits them best, with a lower bound of approximately tier 4.

This will not be changed for the foreseeable future.

This seems like a very sane way to proceed -- after all, a Human Samurai and a Human Druid are both LA +0, but they're clearly not balanced against each other. If you're playing a game that was unbalanced based on class before adding monstrous races, then adding monstrous races won't fix that lack of balance.

So, balance the monsters against their best-fit class, and if that class would not be appropriate for any particular game -- then the monster is equally inappropriate for that particular game.


@Inevitability - you might be able to answer some criticisms by making it more explicit which tier each monster targets for its LA.

E.g., if a game is T3-T4, then the players & DM would have an easier time identifying monstrous races which would fit into their game if they could easily identify T3 and T4 compatible monsters.

[Dimers]

It would really aid discussion if you were to actually, y'know, clarify what you meant when asked, rather than just repeating the same thing over and over without clarifying or explaining what you mean.

I'll reword what I think Jorm's point is. If a nymph with druid casting is compared against bard or barbarian or swordsage character levels, the druid casting makes it seem like a really good deal, and therefore it should have high LA. If the nymph with druid casting is compared against druid character levels, nymph abilities aren't stronger than wildshape plus animal companion plus other class features, and therefore the nymph should have low LA. Conclusion: comparing nymph against druid makes its LA lower.

Monsters will be compared to the class that fits them best, with a lower bound of approximately tier 4.

Thank you for the (semi-)official ruling, and I agree with your reasoning.

[javcs]

The dragon loses 2 pts of dr and trap sense nighty tireless and indomitable rage the dragon gains 3 higher on base saves. 6 pts nat armor 6 str 4 con looks pretty even or the advantage to dragon to me


On a phone

I'll grant that the Wyrmlings have the best LA, and Barbarian isn't the most ability-rich class. Tireless is pretty important, though.
Trap sense probably got swapped for an ACF or two.
In addition, the Red Wyrmling/Barbarian 13 can be flanked by a Rogue 17 (or higher). The Barbarian 20 can only be flanked by a Rogue 24 (or higher).
And the Red Wyrmling still lacks opposable thumbs.

Alternatively, compare the Red Wyrmling to, say, a Warblade (I don't remember what they were getting compared against originally).

That said, true dragons have a rather poor racial ability to racial hit dice ratio.

This seems like a very sane way to proceed -- after all, a Human Samurai and a Human Druid are both LA +0, but they're clearly not balanced against each other. If you're playing a game that was unbalanced based on class before adding monstrous races, then adding monstrous races won't fix that lack of balance.

So, balance the monsters against their best-fit class, and if that class would not be appropriate for any particular game -- then the monster is equally inappropriate for that particular game.


@Inevitability - you might be able to answer some criticisms by making it more explicit which tier each monster targets for its LA.

E.g., if a game is T3-T4, then the players & DM would have an easier time identifying monstrous races which would fit into their game if they could easily identify T3 and T4 compatible monsters.

Thank you for the (semi-)official ruling, and I agree with your reasoning.

Indeed.
Or perhaps make it more explicit what class (or classes) are being considered the best-fit class for the purpose of this creature, not just its tier.
Although, I think in most cases Tier should be fairly self-evident. Especially when people look at the reasoning behind their positions. But I suppose we shouldn't assume people will read the discussions.

I'll reword what I think Jorm's point is. If a nymph with druid casting is compared against bard or barbarian or swordsage character levels, the druid casting makes it seem like a really good deal, and therefore it should have high LA. If the nymph with druid casting is compared against druid character levels, nymph abilities aren't stronger than wildshape plus animal companion plus other class features, and therefore the nymph should have low LA. Conclusion: comparing nymph against druid makes its LA lower.

A Druid X is better than an equal number of Bard, Barbarian, or Swordsage levels anyways. X number of class levels has a value that varies significantly based on what class (or classes) are taken. But it's not like Druid (or any of the stronger/higher Tier classes) gets an LA.

Besides, that also applies when assessing any creature with racial spellcasting at, near, or in excess of its RHD. Ie, Ghaele(Cleric), Rakshasa(Sorcerer), Trumpet Archon(Cleric), Aranea(Sorcerer), Nymph(Druid). I don't see anybody rushing to say that the Aranea, Trumpet Archon, Ghaele, or Rakshasa should not be compared against the class that they have racial spellcasting for.
Or Solars or Formian Queens.

At any rate, I'm not sure that not comparing a creature with racial casting at, near, or in excess of its RHD, to the class it has the spellcasting of can be justified. I certainly haven't seen Jormengand present their reasoning to not compare to the class a creature has significant racial spellcasting from.

[Dimers]

It's just an extension of the question Inevitability ruled on, whether to compare against a single tier or compare against a matching normal PC build. I can see reasons for both, but I'm glad to have a firm answer.

[Lans]

I'll gr

At any rate, I'm not sure that not comparing a creature with racial casting at, near, or in excess of its RHD, to the class it has the spellcasting of can be justified. I certainly haven't seen Jormengand present their reasoning to not compare to the class a creature has significant racial spellcasting from.

I think a case can be made for races that have low hd and a strong selling point to something other than casting