The LA-assignment thread V: Escape from LA

[Inevitability]

Ogre, Skullcrusher

It ain't ogre till its ogre?

Skullcrushers are 8 RHD giants. The four HD over their non-crushing cousins are made up for by a +4 strength bonus, better mental stats, free weapon and armor proficiencies, rock throwing, and Improved Grapple and Two-Weapon Fighting as bonus feats. Also interestingly enough the natural armor is worse than the default ogre's.

Does this justify missing out on four class levels? I'd be inclined to answer 'no'. A regular ogre is already making up most of the difference in damage with the extra power attack it can use, the skullcrusher's bonus feats are so-so, and the weapon proficiencies are something any self-respecting melee warrior would already have.

If a few of the RHD had been removed, I'd give skullcrusher ogres a reasonable +0. As they are now, -0 seems to be the best assignment.

[OgresAreCute]

Could have been workable for a very boring melee build with 5 or maybe 6 hit dice. Also, these are less cute.

-0.

[Celestia]

The skullcrusher gets a -jaundice.

[Zaq]

I’m not an expert on martial arts, but that pic looks weird. Don’t you think he’d get better leverage holding the mace longer?

Right, LA or something. 8 RHD needs more than just numbers to make me happy. Skullcrushers have no real tricks, just numbers. -0.

[javcs]

Concur, -0. Too many RHD, insufficient benefits for the number of RHD. Par for the course when it comes to to things with the Giant type.
Also, CR of 5, 8 RHD, and a WotC LA of +3, for a WotC ECL of 11 ... while it's CR5

Wait, why does the generic one have Mounted Combat?

[danielxcutter]

Concur, -0. Too many RHD, insufficient benefits for the number of RHD. Par for the course when it comes to to things with the Giant type.
Also, CR of 5, 8 RHD, and a WotC LA of +3, for a WotC ECL of 11 ... while it's CR5

Wait, why does the generic one have Mounted Combat?

Apparently they ride war elephants. That is probably a bit less effective in 3.5 than it was in RL, but eh, probably enough to crush most NPC soldiers.

[Celestia]

Apparently they ride war elephants. That is probably a bit less effective in 3.5 than it was in RL, but eh, probably enough to crush most NPC soldiers.

Well, if we're talking NPC warriors who are, most commonly, levels 1-3, then a single war elephant can probably solo an army.

[unseenmage]

Minus zero would seem the only reasonable choice.

Makes me want to go back in time, sit the designers down, and MAKE them play monster HD as class levels so they know what they did.

And to, of course, smack them with the rolled up newspaper while I rub their nose in the monster HD to class level equivalency pile they made.

[Nifft]

+4 HD for two bad feats? That thing is basically an Ogre Fighter.

I guess if Fighters are par for your game, then it might be +0.

As the thread's target tier is T3, it's LA -0.

Makes me want to go back in time, sit the designers down, and MAKE them play monster HD as class levels so they know what they did.

The designers gaze back at you, and calmly say: "What we did was make a fun monster for the PCs to kill. It's not our problem that you want to use it wrong."

[GreatWyrmGold]

I’m not an expert on martial arts, but that pic looks weird. Don’t you think he’d get better leverage holding the mace longer?

Yes. With some weapons, holding the weapon closer to the dangerous end helps in close quarters, but I'm not sure maces are among them...and the ogre doesn't seem to be in close combat.

The designers gaze back at you, and calmly say: "What we did was make a fun monster for the PCs to kill. It's not our problem that you want to use it wrong."

Yeah, we'd need to specifically find the designer who chose level adjustments and specifically ask him/her what they were thinking.

[Inevitability]

Yeah, we'd need to specifically find the designer who chose level adjustments and specifically ask him/her what they were thinking.

Speaking of which, the skullcrusher's default LA is +3. Have fun being a full iterative behind the party fighter, I guess?

[javcs]

I'm pretty sure monster ECL got handwaved through without any play testing at all, far less an individual case by case assessment for each monster.

Okay, I get not bothering to work out LA for non-sentients, or for monsters that have no native means of communication.

[unseenmage]

...

The designers gaze back at you, and calmly say: "What we did was make a fun monster for the PCs to kill. It's not our problem that you want to use it wrong."

Except they barely did even that.

Additionally it was they who laid monster progression alongside PC progression, dropped level benefits across each (skill points, feats, etc), then had the audacity to type up descriptions of how monsters and PCs progress the same way.

If wizards are quadratic and fighters are linear, what's that make monsters?

[javcs]

Except they barely did even that.

Additionally it was they who laid monster progression alongside PC progression, dropped level benefits across each (skill points, feats, etc), then had the audacity to type up descriptions of how monsters and PCs progress the same way.

If wizards are quadratic and fighters are linear, what's that make monsters?

Varies widely, based on the monster in question.
Some are better than a wizard, others are worse than a fighter.

So ... maybe monsters are the square root of -1.

[Nifft]

So ... maybe monsters are the square root of -1.

Nice.

To be fair, though, everything else in the game is also the square root of -1.

[ViperMagnum357]

LA -0 for the Skullcrusher. Its stats are not that great for 8 RHD, crappy natural AC for the same, 2 BAB and 3 bonus feats behind the straight Fighter, and nothing special or interesting to make up the difference beyond Large size-and there are many easier ways to get that, most of which will not cost you more than about 1 ECL. Hard pass as PC material goes.

[Efrate]

totally -0. just take fighter levels on your normal ogre.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Except they barely did even that.

Some monsters do have gimmicks that make them interesting to fight. Others...well, every monster manual has more than a fair share of beatsticks, some with a couple of little abilities or interesting lore to back them up, some which don't. Skullcrushers fall into the last category.

[ExLibrisMortis]

I would play an ogre mage over a skullcrusher ogre ten times out of nine. LA -0 and a disapproving snort. *Snort*.

[Thurbane]

If the HD were less, I could see LA +1. As is, I'd vote LA +0.

[danielxcutter]

...I wonder sometimes if at least some of 3.5's imbalance was on purpose, honestly.

[Hish]

With Ogres reasonable at +0, the Skullcrusher seems like a -0. I'd rather put 4 levels of fighter on my Ogre than play a Skullcrusher.

Edit: Upon further thought and running some stats, I'll go for +0. I still wouldn't want to play one, but I don't think they're worth some-unknown-number-of-negative-LA. So not -0.

[GreatWyrmGold]

...I wonder sometimes if at least some of 3.5's imbalance was on purpose, honestly.

Interesting hypothesis. What makes you say that?

[Mike Miller]

I think the -0 is being applied too liberally here. I know the -0 vs +0 debate was just revived recently, but the ogre skullcrusher isn't as bad as many other truly deserving -0 creatures. For example, an initiator build wouldn't be so bad. Coming in at it's 9th HD it starts with 3rd level maneuvers. Sure, it isn't ideal, but there are uses for it and it would certainly fit into a bruiser role. I don't agree that it is -0. I vote +0.

[javcs]

I think the -0 is being applied too liberally here. I know the -0 vs +0 debate was just revived recently, but the ogre skullcrusher isn't as bad as many other truly deserving -0 creatures. For example, an initiator build wouldn't be so bad. Coming in at it's 9th HD it starts with 3rd level maneuvers. Sure, it isn't ideal, but there are uses for it and it would certainly fit into a bruiser role. I don't agree that it is -0. I vote +0.

-0 doesn't necessarily mean it's unplayably bad.
-0 means that it is not equivalent to a T3-T4 class of level equal to its RHD.
-0 is a range.


Sure, there are certainly monsters that are massively worse for their RHD than the skullcrusher ogre.
But that doesn't mean the skullcrusher is somehow less bad for its RHD.

[ViperMagnum357]

I think the -0 is being applied too liberally here. I know the -0 vs +0 debate was just revived recently, but the ogre skullcrusher isn't as bad as many other truly deserving -0 creatures. For example, an initiator build wouldn't be so bad. Coming in at it's 9th HD it starts with 3rd level maneuvers. Sure, it isn't ideal, but there are uses for it and it would certainly fit into a bruiser role. I don't agree that it is -0. I vote +0.

The Skullcrusher is not terrible, but the balance point of the the thread is explicitly tier 3. This monster is (with just cause) being compared unfavorably to a basic Ogre at 4 of the same RHD, making up the difference in pure Fighter levels (tier 5, or 4 using variants, ACFs and dead level junk to squeeze every last ounce of use). Being compared unfavorably to a 3.5 Fighter is definitely not something to put on your resume.

[Mike Miller]

I understand and am usually on board with -0. I just think this thing can do the ol' beatstick routine to an acceptable degree.

[GreatWyrmGold]

I don't want to repeat javcs, so I'll quote him.

-0 doesn't necessarily mean it's unplayably bad.
-0 is a range.

Sure, there are certainly monsters that are massively worse for their RHD than the skullcrusher ogre. But that doesn't mean the skullcrusher is somehow less bad for its RHD.

I wonder if it would be worth implementing two levels of -0 (with the lower level perhaps being -0!) just to stop these sorts of comments cropping up for literally every barely-playable beatstick with no redeeming features beyond not being as HD-bloated as it could be.

[javcs]

I don't want to repeat javcs, so I'll quote him.


I wonder if it would be worth implementing two levels of -0 (with the lower level perhaps being -0!) just to stop these sorts of comments cropping up for literally every barely-playable beatstick with no redeeming features beyond not being as HD-bloated as it could be.

-0! Could get mistaken for something akin to- -0*.
-0> for the flagrantly unplayable, maybe?

[unseenmage]

Interesting hypothesis. What makes you say that?

From what I remember WotC designed 3.5 similarly to MtG wherein there were good and bad choices baked in.