The LA-assignment thread -0: Inevitably rejected: Redux

[martixy]

There's the LA-assignment threads and we all know what those are about.

(The LA-assignment archive) ^{if you don't}

Due to the nature of the HD system in D&D however, we frequently end up with monsters that are too weak even with 0 LA. Or LA-0 in the other thread's parlance. That means there has to be some other kind of ECL reduction to make these creatures competitive, and the only thing left to reduce is the RHD they possess.

This thread will do this. It is complimentary to the other threads.

We'll only we be looking at monsters classified at as LA-0. I won't bother with derived/advanced creatures - e.g. the bigger arrow hawks or the abyssal basilisk (which is just the normal one, with the fiendish template) - the point is to REDUCE RHD to playable levels, not further do yourself in by increasing them. Unless you want to. More power to you.
The recommendation here is to just play the lowest viable version (so for the Arrow Hawk for example, just play the juvenile).

Spoiler: Old stuff that didn't work

Show

All listed stats will be based on a "virtual size category" of Medium, as I use the standard monster size increase bonuses as sort of a standard +1.
I.e. if a large creature is 20 Strength, then it's effectively +2 Str - it's largness will be +1 and only that +2 will factor into additional considerations for increasing its ECL.

Additional notes (other tweaks you might make to adapt creatures further):
1. There is a case to be made for "de-advancing" monsters - extrapolating a monster's advancement backwards, with regards to size. E.g. a monster that's large by default and can be advanced to huge, might also be de-advanced to medium at lower-than-default HD. There is no good benchmark at what threshold that should happen, use your own judgement. If you determine that a creature deserves a size reduction, you can use the tables provided here to calculate its change in statistics.
The general advice is to remove 1 ECL from the estimated ECL we have here for each category the creature loses.
2. There is also a school of thought here, in replacing a certain amount of RHD with LA, for buy-off friendly games. But that determination will be left to the reader.

(Thread name stolen from GreatWyrmGold. A pun on the fact that we're dealing with the rejects from the original threads, started by user Inevitability. Welcoming other suggestions.)

Spoiler: Monster Manual 1

Show

Monster name	Estimated LA	Estimated ECL	RHD Adjustment
Animated Object, Large	-0	3	-1
Animated Object, Huge	-0	4	-4
Animated Object, Gargantuan	-0	5	-11
Animated Object, Colossal	-0	6	-25
Athach	-0	4	-10
Belker	-0	4	-10
Bugbear	+1	2	-3
Chaos Beast	0	3	-5
Chuul	0	5	-6

[martixy]

Reserved 1

[martixy]

Reserved 2, just in case.

[martixy]

Animated Objects (Large to Colossal)

Animated objects are constructs and so have some nice immunities and all that jazz. That said, it's the type, not the RHD that does things, and those get quickly overshadowed at higher ECL.

Besides, large sizes begin running into different problems when played into actual campaigns - such as their ability to enter enclosed spaces like dungeons and buildings, which is impossible to quantify here.

I'll do Animated objects, just as an example, so you know how the ECL estimation method works:

1. The highest playable example we have is Medium, which is 2 RHD and +0 LA. So we have a base ECL of 2.
2. Size category increases are +1. Therefore for large we end up with at least ECL 3. However +1 construct RHD isn't enough to push us any higher (remember, they're among the lowest tier HD - 4HD per CR increase). So we end up with 3 RHD at best (-1 from the listed).
3. For huge we're looking at ECL 4 at least. Again, extra RHD isn't enough to push us even higher, therefore we remain at 4 ECL, or -4 RHD from the listed.
4. Similar for Gargantuan an Colossal.

Large: -1 RHD [ECL 3]
Huge: -4 RHD [ECL 4]
Gargantuan: -11 HD [ECL 5]
Colossal: -25 HD [ECL 6]

[martixy]

Athach

Let's see.
Huge
Str +0, Dex +6, Con +2, Int -4, Wis +2, Cha -4
Nat AC +3
(Excluding size adjustments)
+1 hand and a bite attack
Poison Attack

Decidedly unimpressive. Just a bag of HP.
3rd hand does open up multiweapon fighting, but that's just more of the same. MWF isn't even a bonus feat.

2 size categories for +2 ECL, the abilities are probably worth another +1, barely, hand, bite and poison for another +1 and RHD for the last one for a total of 5 ECL, or -9 RHD.

Verdict: -10 RHD [4 ECL]

[OgresAreCute]

Athach

Let's see.
Huge
Str +0, Dex +6, Con +2, Int -2, Wis +2, Cha -4
Nat AC +3
(Excluding size adjustments)
+1 hand and a bite attack
Poison Attack

Decidedly unimpressive. Just a bag of HP.
3rd hand does open up multiweapon fighting, but that's just more of the same. MWF isn't even a bonus feat.

2 size categories for +2 ECL, the abilities are probably worth another +1, barely, hand, bite and poison for another +1 and RHD for the last one for a total of 5 ECL, or -9 RHD.

Verdict: (Awaiting input...)

There's no such thing as "size adjustments". You only use those when advancing a creature by hit dice so much its size increases (for example, the black pudding has 10 HD and is huge size, if you advanced it by 6 more HD it would become gargantuan and gain +8 STR, +4 CON and +4 natural armor).

That is to say, the Athach has +16 Racial strength, not +0.

[martixy]

There's no such thing as "size adjustments". You only use those when advancing a creature by hit dice so much its size increases (for example, the black pudding has 10 HD and is huge size, if you advanced it by 6 more HD it would become gargantuan and gain +8 STR, +4 CON and +4 natural armor).

That is to say, the Athach has +16 Racial strength, not +0.

It's an abstraction, to help break down and assess things.
There are also no medium size Athaches either.

[GreatWyrmGold]

...or the abyssal basilisk (which is just the normal one, with the fiendish template)...

Also some extra RHD, hence "greater".

1. The highest playable example we have is Medium, which is 2 RHD and +0 LA. So we have a base ECL of 2.
2. Size category increases are +1. Therefore for large we end up with at least ECL 3. However +1 construct RHD isn't enough to push us any higher (remember, they're among the lowest tier HD - 4HD per CR increase). So we end up with 3 RHD at best (-1 from the listed).
3. For huge we're looking at ECL 4 at least. Again, extra RHD isn't enough to push us even higher, therefore we remain at 4 ECL, or -4 RHD from the listed.
4. Similar for Gargantuan an Colossal.

Huh, interesting methodology.

2 size categories for +2 ECL, the abilities are probably worth another +1, barely, hand, bite and poison for another +1 and RHD for the last one for a total of 5 ECL, or -9 RHD.

I don't know how much I like going purely by "This ability is worth this many levels of class features" without the slightest reference to what those characters could accomplish, and I'm definitely not a fan of disregarding "size bonuses" to attributes. +8 Strength is +8 Strength, whatever your size category.

[martixy]

I don't know how much I like going purely by "This ability is worth this many levels of class features" without the slightest reference to what those characters could accomplish, and I'm definitely not a fan of disregarding "size bonuses" to attributes. +8 Strength is +8 Strength, whatever your size category.

Well we do need some kind of standard measuring stick. I'm open to suggestions, but for my part, that's the best method I could come up.

Also, I have no clue what you mean by "disregarding "size bonuses" to attributes".

[Segev]

To make sure I understand the goal of this thread, what we're doing is determining a "fair" ECL for the monster to be played at, with RHD being removed to reduce its assessed LA+RHD to this ECL?

I think a first step would be to determine, then, how many class hit dice a given kind of RHD is. For instance, is a dragon HD (d12, full BAB, all good saves, some tie-in to breath weapon saves in many cases) worth a full Fighter HD? A full Wizard HD? Half a Cleric HD? Three-quarters of a Rogue HD?

The point being, if we're stripping off RHD to reduce ECL down to a "reasonable" level for a playable version of the creature, we should determine just how much ECL is really being stripped by the RHD. If we make the assumption that is standard - that RHD are worth a level each - we're already shooting ourselves in the foot, because if that were the case, playing them at the ECL required by their RHD+LA would be totally fair.

[Zaq]

I approve of this thread and its mission.

However, I’m pretty confused as to its methodology.

I think we need to be really explicit about exactly what assumptions are being made, especially with regard to size and also with regard to ability mods. I read your explanation, but it was not easy to follow, and I’m not convinced I’m on the same page as you. Can you perhaps go through that in a bit more detail, including a clearer explanation of exactly what you’re doing and why you’re doing it? Are we making all of these critters Medium or something? How exactly are you recalculating the stat mods and any other numbers?

Remember, there’s a ton of chatter and discussion in this kind of thread, especially if it gets off the ground. If I don’t get it, it’s likely that other folks will also be confused, and maybe not even in the same way! The assumptions and methodology need to be as clear as possible from the get-go to make sure that as many participants as possible are able to have a useful discussion with one another.

[martixy]

To make sure I understand the goal of this thread, what we're doing is determining a "fair" ECL for the monster to be played at, with RHD being removed to reduce its assessed LA+RHD to this ECL?

I think a first step would be to determine, then, how many class hit dice a given kind of RHD is. For instance, is a dragon HD (d12, full BAB, all good saves, some tie-in to breath weapon saves in many cases) worth a full Fighter HD? A full Wizard HD? Half a Cleric HD? Three-quarters of a Rogue HD?

The point being, if we're stripping off RHD to reduce ECL down to a "reasonable" level for a playable version of the creature, we should determine just how much ECL is really being stripped by the RHD. If we make the assumption that is standard - that RHD are worth a level each - we're already shooting ourselves in the foot, because if that were the case, playing them at the ECL required by their RHD+LA would be totally fair.

I kinda already described that implicitly.

I'm going off by this table here:
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/improvingMonsters.htm

I'll give an example:
So, we figure how much ECL the abilities alone are worth. Let's say 4.
That means we end up with a creature of minimum 4 RHD.
Of those HD are aberration, 4 of them are equal to 1 extra ECL, so we add one more RHD, for a total of 5.
Now, if those HD are dragon - which are the strong ones, we'd add 2 HD. Except now those 2 HD are not accounted for in our ECL assessment, so we do that again - every 2 dragon HD are +1 ECL, so we add an extra ECL on top, and we're done - ending up with ECL 7.
It's kind of a recursive process.

I approve of this thread and its mission.

However, I’m pretty confused as to its methodology.

I think we need to be really explicit about exactly what assumptions are being made, especially with regard to size and also with regard to ability mods. I read your explanation, but it was not easy to follow, and I’m not convinced I’m on the same page as you. Can you perhaps go through that in a bit more detail, including a clearer explanation of exactly what you’re doing and why you’re doing it? Are we making all of these critters Medium or something? How exactly are you recalculating the stat mods and any other numbers?

Remember, there’s a ton of chatter and discussion in this kind of thread, especially if it gets off the ground. If I don’t get it, it’s likely that other folks will also be confused, and maybe not even in the same way! The assumptions and methodology need to be as clear as possible from the get-go to make sure that as many participants as possible are able to have a useful discussion with one another.

We're not making the critters medium, I'm just using size increase bonuses as a kind of "standard measuring stick", aiming for somewhere around mid-optimization levels to break down a creature's bonuses and abilities into more easy to assess chunks.

[liquidformat]

So an interesting thing I saw a couple weeks ago (can't find thread) was the idea of size increase also changing hit dice as a way to adjust hd bloat for larger than medium creatures. I think from an RHD reduction point of view for to make monsters more playable this is a decent adjustment.
In the case of Athach we end up with the following: 14d8+70 turns to x*(3d6)+5x=126 getting x(rhd)=9 which is a more reasonable level.

Comments on this method:
- Since it is purely based on increasing hp/rhd it 'weights' the monster type, ie dragons should have a larger reduction then fey.
- This method doesn't play nicely with iterative monsters like dragons since increasing size catagory could end up with an rhd reduction.

I kinda already described that implicitly.

I'm going off by this table here:
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/improvingMonsters.htm

I'll give an example:
So, we figure how much ECL the abilities alone are worth. Let's say 4.
That means we end up with a creature of minimum 4 RHD.
Of those HD are aberration, 4 of them are equal to 1 extra ECL, so we add one more RHD, for a total of 5.
Now, if those HD are dragon - which are the strong ones, we'd add 2 HD. Except now those 2 HD are not accounted for in our ECL assessment, so we do that again - every 2 dragon HD are +1 ECL, so we add an extra ECL on top, and we're done - ending up with ECL 7.
It's kind of a recursive process.



We're not making the critters medium, I'm just using size increase bonuses as a kind of "standard measuring stick", aiming for somewhere around mid-optimization levels to break down a creature's bonuses and abilities into more easy to assess chunks.

The issue is you are hand waving what an ability is worth key issue is the 'let's say 4' it is ambiguous how we got to 4 or where it came from... Why are 4 aberration rhd worth an extra ecl, why are 4 dragon rhd worth 2? This doesn't make any sense and isn't grounded in anything. We need a starting point.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Well we do need some kind of standard measuring stick. I'm open to suggestions, but for my part, that's the best method I could come up.

Also, I have no clue what you mean by "disregarding "size bonuses" to attributes".

1. What's wrong with comparing the monsters to actual potential characters, instead of using some bastract, arbitrary set of numbers?
2.

Str +0, Dex +6, Con +2, Int -2, Wis +2, Cha -4
(Excluding size adjustments)

Athatches don't get size adjustments. They aren't medium creatures, advanced to huge size. They are huge creatures. The athatch gets an extra 16 points of Strength, regardless of how "typical" that is for something its size.

[Segev]

I kinda already described that implicitly.

I'm going off by this table here:
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/improvingMonsters.htm

I'll give an example:
So, we figure how much ECL the abilities alone are worth. Let's say 4.
That means we end up with a creature of minimum 4 RHD.
Of those HD are aberration, 4 of them are equal to 1 extra ECL, so we add one more RHD, for a total of 5.
Now, if those HD are dragon - which are the strong ones, we'd add 2 HD. Except now those 2 HD are not accounted for in our ECL assessment, so we do that again - every 2 dragon HD are +1 ECL, so we add an extra ECL on top, and we're done - ending up with ECL 7.
It's kind of a recursive process.

Okay, that example helps. So the goal is ECL = RHD at the end of the exercise?

I will ignore the discussion over the transformation of the Athatch to Medium in this thread so far, and focus on the numbers as written: if I understand this correctly, then, a 5 HD Athatch is a 5 ECL character with LA+0, by this formulation. Is that right?

[martixy]

The issue is you are hand waving what an ability is worth key issue is the 'let's say 4' it is ambiguous how we got to 4 or where it came from... Why are 4 aberration rhd worth an extra ecl, why are 4 dragon rhd worth 2? This doesn't make any sense and isn't grounded in anything. We need a starting point.

Oh come on... the "grounding" is literally linked 2 lines above that example!

1. What's wrong with comparing the monsters to actual potential characters, instead of using some abstract, arbitrary set of numbers?
2.
Athatches don't get size adjustments. They aren't medium creatures, advanced to huge size. They are huge creatures. The athatch gets an extra 16 points of Strength, regardless of how "typical" that is for something its size.

1. Nothing at all. But creatures are frequently a combo between random abilities and abstract sets of numbers, and I've decided to compare abstract sets of numbers to other abstract sets of numbers. You know, apples to apples. For the abilities, things are more ambiguous.
2. I feel like I'm repeating myself (because I am), but this is just a tool used to break down the monster into easier to quantify chunks. I'm not making Athatches medium and I'm not saying anything about racial bonuses and the like.

Okay, that example helps. So the goal is ECL = RHD at the end of the exercise?

I will ignore the discussion over the transformation of the Athatch to Medium in this thread so far, and focus on the numbers as written: if I understand this correctly, then, a 5 HD Athatch is a 5 ECL character with LA+0, by this formulation. Is that right?

Correct. Its about finding that balance point where a creature with X RHD + its innate abilities is ECL X.

[Segev]

2. I feel like I'm repeating myself (because I am), by this is just a tool used to break down the monster into easier to quantify chunks. I'm not making Athatches medium and I'm not saying anything about racial bonuses and the like.

This is less than clear in your Athatch analysis. Are you saying "Large or larger is worth +1 ECL, so any creature - including the Athatch - that is at least Large size gets an automatic +1?"

Correct. Its about finding that balance point where a creature with X RHD + its innate abilities is ECL X.

A good goal. Is the reason you don't follow this procedure with LA > 0 creatures to minimize the level-of-entry for playable creatures (since adding RHD to them would also push the ECL higher)?

[liquidformat]

Oh come on... the "grounding" is literally linked 2 lines above that example!

When I say grounding I don't mean stating 'a size increase is worth 1 ecl', 'barely, hand, bite and poison for another +1', 'having 4 aberrant rhd is worth another rhd'. I mean creating a base line case of why being large is worth 1 ecl, being huge is another, and so on; why having 4 aberrant rhd is worth enough to add another on (that concept in and of itself doesn't make any sense; these rhd are so powerful I should give another for good measure!); why is having a bite with a rider + an extra hand worth an ecl what are we comparing this to to make that determination?

Do you see what I mean by this needs to be grounded. You are going full tilt into analysis without explaining first how you are coming up with your base system for the analysis that is an issue. How are we supposed to understand what you are doing much less comment on it if we don't understand where you are pulling numbers from....

[Segev]

When I say grounding I don't mean stating 'a size increase is worth 1 ecl', 'barely, hand, bite and poison for another +1', 'having 4 aberrant rhd is worth another rhd'. I mean creating a base line case of why being large is worth 1 ecl, being huge is another, and so on; why having 4 aberrant rhd is worth enough to add another on (that concept in and of itself doesn't make any sense; these rhd are so powerful I should give another for good measure!); why is having a bite with a rider + an extra hand worth an ecl what are we comparing this to to make that determination?

Do you see what I mean by this needs to be grounded. You are going full tilt into analysis without explaining first how you are coming up with your base system for the analysis that is an issue. How are we supposed to understand what you are doing much less comment on it if we don't understand where you are pulling numbers from....

It's in a table about 3/4 the way down this page, which he linked in response to me: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/improvingMonsters.htm

[liquidformat]

It's in a table about 3/4 the way down this page, which he linked in response to me: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/improvingMonsters.htm

I understood just fine that aberrant rhd/4= cr or dragon rhd/2 = cr; I am not understanding the jump to I have 4 abarret rhd so I need to add another to balance the number of RHD. Simply linking to the monster advancement srd does little to explain the case for any of the assertions that have been made.

[martixy]

This is less than clear in your Athatch analysis. Are you saying "Large or larger is worth +1 ECL, so any creature - including the Athatch - that is at least Large size gets an automatic +1?"

I suppose that's true. The general idea is turn any larger creatures into "virtually medium", stripping the size increases into easy to quantify chunks of +1, then seeing what's left. Some creatures might be left with large ability bonuses which warrant further ECL increases on their own, some might end up with negatives, weighing ECL downwards.

A good goal. Is the reason you don't follow this procedure with LA > 0 creatures to minimize the level-of-entry for playable creatures (since adding RHD to them would also push the ECL higher)?

What do you mean? The other LA threads are maintained by Inevitability. The problem there is, they stop essentially halfway through the process - dealing only with LA, which is only half (or even a third) of what constitutes a creature's ECL. And it's ECL, the whole package, which determines a creature's playability and relative competitiveness.

So I decided to take up the other half of the process, for creatures that need not only LA adjustments, but also RHD adjustment.
Don't know if Inevitability has a process and what it is, but I decided I needed something more consistent than gut feeling, that's the preliminary results of that effort.
Granted, poor, poor explanation (I suck at those, it's a character flaw^{not sure what feat I got for that one}), but we're slowly getting past that hurdle too.

When I say grounding I don't mean stating 'a size increase is worth 1 ecl', 'barely, hand, bite and poison for another +1', 'having 4 aberrant rhd is worth another rhd'. I mean creating a base line case of why being large is worth 1 ecl, being huge is another, and so on; why having 4 aberrant rhd is worth enough to add another on (that concept in and of itself doesn't make any sense; these rhd are so powerful I should give another for good measure!); why is having a bite with a rider + an extra hand worth an ecl what are we comparing this to to make that determination?

Do you see what I mean by this needs to be grounded. You are going full tilt into analysis without explaining first how you are coming up with your base system for the analysis that is an issue. How are we supposed to understand what you are doing much less comment on it if we don't understand where you are pulling numbers from....

As noted, table.
As for size increases = 1 ecl - Well, there's the half-minotaur template, which is LA+1, gives a size increase + extra stuff (mostly some additional abilities) and is usually considered super cheesey. And most times, when it's discussed, the following thought crops up "usually just the size increase is worth +1". With which I tend to agree. That template is quite strong for +1. It's probably okay in high-op games. For a more middle of the road power-level, just the size increase fits perfectly for a +1.
For the hand, well... I was thinking along the lines of Pathfinder's Race Point system (which, I know, is not the most reliable justification, but it's better than nothing). A normal race of 1 ECL is 10 RP. Extra hand is 4 RP, bite is 2 RP, poison is 1 RP = 7 RP, most of the way to a +1. Admittedly somewhat conservative in this case, but that's how rounding works.

I understood just find that aberrant rhd/4= cr or dragon rhd/2 = cr I am not understanding the jump to I have 4 abbarent rhd so I need to add another to balance the number of RHD. Simply linking to the monster advancement srd does little to explain the case for any of the assertions that have been made.

The jump is: Say we have a creature whose innate abilities are 4 ECL worth.
That's 4 ECL in a vacuum. Also called Level Adjustment. We are playing with RHD, which add more on top of that. They have to be accounted for, and are, at the going rate described in that table.

[Segev]

If you just go by the table you have there, any size increase over Medium is a flat +1. So large, huge, or even collossal, is only +1 CR.

Anything over +4 str with -2 dex should be separately adjudicated for LA purposes.

However, if you're going to use Inevitability's threads as a guide, you can start with his LAs, and then all you have to worry about is the RHD adjustments.

[liquidformat]

[CENTER][SIZE=4]The jump is: Say we have a creature whose innate abilities are 4 ECL worth.
That's 4 ECL in a vacuum. Also called Level Adjustment. We are playing with RHD, which add more on top of that. They have to be accounted for, and are, at the going rate described in that table.

First off you have gotten the int wrong it is -4 not -2; so total ability scores end up +2 after being adjusted to medium which isn't worth a +1 ecl.

Second, I can get behind +1 for large size though we should be looking at half ogre, half giant, goliath, and water orc for our comparison point to validate that yes this is a +1 ecl. Though I am not 100% sure this should be a linear progression of ecl from medium to colossal...

Lastly is the going rate idea of monster hd, the IM to CR chart says aberration rhd are so bad it takes 4 of them to be equivalent to 1 class level; most likely the bar for this class level was a fighter to boot. So to put it another way that means 1 tier 4-5 class level is worth 4 aberration rhd, that seems to say if we add up all the goodies this monster gets and it is equal to the bar of 4 aberration rhd = 1 tier 4-5 class level we should have it correctly balanced. What you are saying is it is too strong push it into tier 6 or 7 with another rhd.

[Doug Lampert]

To my mind, if you are going to do this, I agree that what you need to do is back out something as the problem is otherwise too painful. But size is the wrong thing, +to size is worth a lot more to a melee brute than a caster or skillmonkey. Treating all size as +1 per above a medium baseline is just not accurate. [Yes, the monster manual does that, the monster manual was written by the same people who thought the attach was LA +5, we're rejecting their judgement as totally wrong when we start this exercise.] Similar comment for their HD valuations. They're wrong.

Try it this way. Imagine a ZERO racial HD attach:

Huge aberration with 50' move.
+8 natural armor
3 arms plus a bite, and the bite does strength damage via poison
+16 str, +2 dex, +10 con, -4 int, +2 wis, -4 cha

Nothing else other than stuff that comes with the aberation type.

That's pretty much all good. How many aberration RHD would you be willing to take to get to play this thing?

That's the question under examination given the definition of -LA values being used.

You're going to dip barbarian for pounce and take multiattack and get elite abilities and PC gear to stack with the already good physical stats. That's the build. How many aberration HD will your melee brute be willing to take to get the goodies on his multiattack pounce build?

I'm tempted by 8, but that's just a gut feeling. I don't play 3.5 anymore, and I never played ToB melee builds. But that's the question you're answering here, not "how good would this be if medium", but "how good would this be if fewer aberration HD", start with the minimum (aka zero), make sure it's worth it at that level (yes, very much so), and work up.

[OgresAreCute]

To my mind, if you are going to do this, I agree that what you need to do is back out something as the problem is otherwise too painful. But size is the wrong thing, +to size is worth a lot more to a melee brute than a caster or skillmonkey. Treating all size as +1 per above a medium baseline is just not accurate. [Yes, the monster manual does that, the monster manual was written by the same people who thought the attach was LA +5, we're rejecting their judgement as totally wrong when we start this exercise.] Similar comment for their HD valuations. They're wrong.

Try it this way. Imagine a ZERO racial HD attach:

Huge aberration with 50' move.
+8 natural armor
3 arms plus a bite, and the bite does strength damage via poison
+16 str, +2 dex, +10 con, -4 int, +2 wis, -4 cha

Nothing else other than stuff that comes with the aberation type.

That's pretty much all good. How many aberration RHD would you be willing to take to get to play this thing?

That's the question under examination given the definition of -LA values being used.

You're going to dip barbarian for pounce and take multiattack and get elite abilities and PC gear to stack with the already good physical stats. That's the build. How many aberration HD will your melee brute be willing to take to get the goodies on his multiattack pounce build?

I'm tempted by 8, but that's just a gut feeling. I don't play 3.5 anymore, and I never played ToB melee builds. But that's the question you're answering here, not "how good would this be if medium", but "how good would this be if fewer aberration HD", start with the minimum (aka zero), make sure it's worth it at that level (yes, very much so), and work up.

I agree with pretty much all of this. The methodology is a lot simpler and easier to follow, and doesn't rely on any wacky tables that may or may not be accurate for everything we'll be using them for.

[martixy]

If you just go by the table you have there, any size increase over Medium is a flat +1. So large, huge, or even collossal, is only +1 CR.

Anything over +4 str with -2 dex should be separately adjudicated for LA purposes.

However, if you're going to use Inevitability's threads as a guide, you can start with his LAs, and then all you have to worry about is the RHD adjustments.

Mostly, yes.

And I do start with his LA. More precisely all instances where his LA is -0, and additional adjustment to RHD is needed.

First off you have gotten the int wrong it is -4 not -2; so total ability scores end up +2 after being adjusted to medium which isn't worth a +1 ecl.

Second, I can get behind +1 for large size though we should be looking at half ogre, half giant, goliath, and water orc for our comparison point to validate that yes this is a +1 ecl. Though I am not 100% sure this should be a linear progression of ecl from medium to colossal...

Lastly is the going rate idea of monster hd, the IM to CR chart says aberration rhd are so bad it takes 4 of them to be equivalent to 1 class level; most likely the bar for this class level was a fighter to boot. So to put it another way that means 1 tier 4-5 class level is worth 4 aberration rhd, that seems to say if we add up all the goodies this monster gets and it is equal to the bar of 4 aberration rhd = 1 tier 4-5 class level we should have it correctly balanced. What you are saying is it is too strong push it into tier 6 or 7 with another rhd.

There's a breakdown of communication happening here. Punctuation bad, semantics unclear. I have no idea what's going on.

[liquidformat]

Mostly, yes.

And I do start with his LA. More precisely all instances where his LA is -0, and additional adjustment to RHD is needed.



There's a breakdown of communication happening here. Punctuation bad, semantics unclear. I have no idea what's going on.

Comment one, you screwed up on the int mod it should be -4 not -2. If you adjust the athach to medium and sum its ability scores we end up with +2 and +3 NA, IMO that isn't worth a a class level.

Comment 2, I think 1 level seems reasonable for a size increase to large, though we as a thread should compare that to some +0,+1, and +2 LA races to verify. Beyond Large I am not comfortable with the blanket statement that each size increase is another ECL, we should similarly verify what it should be.

lastly, according to that link 4 aberration RHD = 1 class level, this standard was most likely based on a fighter so somewhere between tier 4-5 for optimization level. Given that logic if all the abilities an aberration possess is equivalent to 4 ECL then we do not need to add another RHD for balance, and doing so makes us worse than a tier 4-5 balance point.

Is that clear enough for you?

[martixy]

Comment one, you screwed up on the int mod it should be -4 not -2. If you adjust the athach to medium and sum its ability scores we end up with +2 and +3 NA, IMO that isn't worth a a class level.

Comment 2, I think 1 level seems reasonable for a size increase to large, though we as a thread should compare that to some +0,+1, and +2 LA races to verify. Beyond Large I am not comfortable with the blanket statement that each size increase is another ECL, we should similarly verify what it should be.

lastly, according to that link 4 aberration RHD = 1 class level, this standard was most likely based on a fighter so somewhere between tier 4-5 for optimization level. Given that logic if all the abilities an aberration possess is equivalent to 4 ECL then we do not need to add another RHD for balance, and doing so makes us worse than a tier 4-5 balance point.

Is that clear enough for you?

Yes, clear enough.
1. You are correct.
2. I agree. May not be as linear as I hope. This is a first stab at this. Improvements pending as edge cases crop up.
3. I feel you underestimate the value or HD. They contain some of the fundamental characteristics of the system, useful for any and all character types. And I absolutely do believe 4d8 HP, 3 BAB, 1.33/1.33/2 saves and 8+4*int skill points are worth 1 class level. Maybe not a T1/T2 level (though situationally, it'd be useful there too), but certainly anything below. And T3 is actually the balance point I'm aiming for.

I'm tempted by 8, but that's just a gut feeling. I don't play 3.5 anymore, and I never played ToB melee builds. But that's the question you're answering here, not "how good would this be if medium", but "how good would this be if fewer aberration HD", start with the minimum (aka zero), make sure it's worth it at that level (yes, very much so), and work up.

Honestly, I don't see myself taking this if it had anything more than 4-5 RHD. It loses and delays way too many class features to be worth my effort.
Granted I may skew a little bit towards higher op, but if I stay cautiously conservative, it'll probably be fine.
I ran through a couple of monsters, using that assessment of "when would I not play this" and they came up pretty close to what the method presented yields, so using that validation I figured it gives good enough results to use, until I either discover something horribly bad with it or I come up with a better approach.

But using "gut feeling" was never going to be the primary approach.

Slowly coming to realize maybe I should have approached this the other way around - posting my "gut feeling" and using my mathzy method to validate it.

[Remuko]

To my mind, if you are going to do this, I agree that what you need to do is back out something as the problem is otherwise too painful. But size is the wrong thing, +to size is worth a lot more to a melee brute than a caster or skillmonkey. Treating all size as +1 per above a medium baseline is just not accurate. [Yes, the monster manual does that, the monster manual was written by the same people who thought the attach was LA +5, we're rejecting their judgement as totally wrong when we start this exercise.] Similar comment for their HD valuations. They're wrong.

Try it this way. Imagine a ZERO racial HD attach:

Huge aberration with 50' move.
+8 natural armor
3 arms plus a bite, and the bite does strength damage via poison
+16 str, +2 dex, +10 con, -4 int, +2 wis, -4 cha

Nothing else other than stuff that comes with the aberation type.

That's pretty much all good. How many aberration RHD would you be willing to take to get to play this thing?

That's the question under examination given the definition of -LA values being used.

You're going to dip barbarian for pounce and take multiattack and get elite abilities and PC gear to stack with the already good physical stats. That's the build. How many aberration HD will your melee brute be willing to take to get the goodies on his multiattack pounce build?

I'm tempted by 8, but that's just a gut feeling. I don't play 3.5 anymore, and I never played ToB melee builds. But that's the question you're answering here, not "how good would this be if medium", but "how good would this be if fewer aberration HD", start with the minimum (aka zero), make sure it's worth it at that level (yes, very much so), and work up.

I agree with all of this. This is how the assessments should be done. The only thing I dont agree with is the conclusion. 8HD is WAY too many for this. 4-5 tops IMO. But otherwise I definitely think assessments should be broken down this way, its much easier to understand and follow and calculate.

[liquidformat]

3. I feel you underestimate the value or HD. They contain some of the fundamental characteristics of the system, useful for any and all character types. And I absolutely do believe 4d8 HP, 3 BAB, 1.33/1.33/2 saves and 8+4*int skill points are worth 1 class level. Maybe not a T1/T2 level (though situationally, it'd be useful there too), but certainly anything below. And T3 is actually the balance point I'm aiming for.

This would be true if not everything got hd but the fact is everything gets hd and the only question then is what is the value of said hd. To determine that we have HP, saves, attack bonus, and class features. In the case of monster rhd the value of the hd is lessened by the fact that the racial features aren't directly tied to an rhd and you are locked into those rhd until they are done without the ability to customize.

Aberration rhd give you d8, 3/4th bab, 1 good save, and 2+int skill points (with crap choice of skills for Athach I might add). This is strictly worse than Aristocrat hd so no I don't think I am underestimating the value of rhd.

With that said here is what I am seeing from Attach:
Base adjusted down to medium:
Str +0, Dex +6, Con +2, Int -4, Wis +2, Cha -4
Nat AC +3
(Excluding size adjustments)
Darkvision 60'
Simple Weapon Proficiency
Medium Armor Proficiency
Skills: Climb, Jump, Listen, Spot

As a base race this isn't worth an ECL, even though you get a nice dex bonus you are taking huge hit to mental stats, just based on the above we are at barely at +0 base race.
Until we decide otherwise I am comfortable to going with medium to large and large to huge as enough class features to be acceptable for 2 ECL.
+1 hand and a bite attack with poison rider sits somewhere between 1/2 and 1 ECL of class features, seems ok to call it 1 ECL.
The final bit takes some goofy hand waving using the IM CR chart we are told that Aberration RHD are worth 1/4 of a class level and what this means for our purpose is a bit abstract. Right now we have '3 levels' of class features given by the Attach which means ECL>=3.
I think at this point it would be good to compare the Attach with character builds as we do in Invevitable's threads to figure out how many RHD it needs. Say comparing Attach with 3,4,5,&6 RHD to water orc barbarian 2/warblade 1, barbarian 2/warblade 2, barbarian 2/warblade 3, & barbarian 2/warblade 4. (we have used barb/war blade build in the previous thread as beat stick baseline.)

So at ECL 3 Attach has +8 Str, +2 Dex, +4 Con, -2 Int, +4 Wis, -2 Cha, +9 AC (+8NA +1 Dex -2size +2 not raging), -3bab(offset to +1 taking account of str), +1 ref, +2 Wis, with lower hp and much worse skills compared to the raging water orc. Attach potentially has 4 attacks with a max of 3d6 damage on 3 and 1d6 on the 4th, so it has high damage potential however its size and 3/4 bab progression offset its attack. The real difference is the Attach has much better reach with higher damage potential at a loss of versatility. At level 3 I believe the reach plus the damage potential make an Athach too powerful compared to water orc standard. I believe the sweet spot is between 4 and 5, at 4 rhd the Athach is one level behind for PRCs and two for IL where as at 5 RHD 2 levels behind for PRCs and ~2 IL at that point the question becomes what are 15' reach and higher damage output worth, personally I don't think the Poison rider is worth much since it doesn't scale well past ~level 8.

I vote 4 RHD seems like a good point for Athach because you aren't getting enough to justify being that extra level behind other beatsticks.

Side comments, athach stat block is all messed up it is putting a single morningstar attack at 16 when it should be 18, in which case with multiweapon fighting and 3 morningstars +14/14/14/9, bite should be +14 and it apparently can throw rocks but not sure what range is it 50' or 10' or some other random number?..