The LA-assignment thread III: Now in HD!

[Inevitability]

I'm actually considering starting a hop-on-hop-off game of short dungeon crawls to let people play monstrous characters once this book's finished.

By the way, would people be interested in this?

[Celestia]

By the way, would people be interested in this?

Maybe. I haven't done any RPing on this forum, but if it's non-committal, I might be interested.

[GreatWyrmGold]

By the way, would people be interested in this?

Sure! Just let us know if and when you decide to do it.

[No brains]

By the way, would people be interested in this?

I would be interested. What more can you tell us? How will the party be organized? Will we just be playing the monsters or will we take class levels? Balancing the group may be an issue.

[Mike Miller]

By the way, would people be interested in this?

Presumably PbP here? I am interested.

[Baby Gary]

By the way, would people be interested in this?

If it is PbP here then sign me up.

[Luccan]

By the way, would people be interested in this?

Could be cool. Will you be asking in the recruitment forum?

[javcs]

By the way, would people be interested in this?

Absolutely.

I would, however, suggest trying to ensure that there's one "normal/traditional" character, as a control comparison.

[Baby Gary]

because of resent talk about how to rate monsters I have realized a flaw in our rating system. I have thought back through manny of the monsters we have covered and I can see no clear system of determining LA. Do you compare it to a Tire 3 build? Tire 1? does it change monster to monster? for martial should we compare them to ToB classes or Non ToB classes? do we only compare to bass classes or can we use PrCs to make a character more similar to whatever monster is being discussed.

If you take the Giant Octopus and compare it to a a Core Fighter? you should have some LA, what about ToB or a Caster? in the former maybe 0 LA and the latter negative.

I think that having a system with which to rate monsters would be very useful for us, the raters, and the people who end up using our ratings.

-Baby Gary

[javcs]

because of resent talk about how to rate monsters I have realized a flaw in our rating system. I have thought back through manny of the monsters we have covered and I can see no clear system of determining LA. Do you compare it to a Tire 3 build? Tire 1? does it change monster to monster? for martial should we compare them to ToB classes or Non ToB classes? do we only compare to bass classes or can we use PrCs to make a character more similar to whatever monster is being discussed.

If you take the Giant Octopus and compare it to a a Core Fighter? you should have some LA, what about ToB or a Caster? in the former maybe 0 LA and the latter negative.

I think that having a system with which to rate monsters would be very useful for us, the raters, and the people who end up using our ratings.

-Baby Gary

I believe that for most of them, they were evaluated relative to classes that would fill the same sort of role in the party. Comparing them to full levels in what would be associated class levels instead of RHD.
IE, if you have racial casting, you get compared to casters of the same sort of casting. If you're a beatstick, you get compared to the beatstick classes.

There was some measure of taking into account what monsters could not do effectively as well. That is, what the limitations of the monsters are. IE, monsters with good physical ability modifiers and terrible mental modifiers are very limited in what sorts of roles and builds they can take on.

Most monsters were beatsticks, and so got assessed relative to beatsticks. Admittedly, because their racial ability modifiers tend to be weighted towards good physical ability racial bonuses and racial penalties to mental abilities, they were more often assessed relative to Barbarians, than to the ToB classes.


Most monsters cannot effectively be casters without racial casting ability, because they have too many RHD to make up for. Oh, sure, there are some exceptions, thanks to Racial PRCs (Beholder), and there's the Ur-Priest, but that's not always a good option either.

[Blue Jay]

By the way, would people be interested in this?

I might like to give it try. Will you post a link/alert here when it's ready?

[Celestia]

<snip>

Isn't this, like, the twelfth time someone has asked this? Or has it been more?

[Jormengand]

Isn't this, like, the twelfth time someone has asked this? Or has it been more?

Maybe eventually it will get a worthwhile answer.

[Baby Gary]

Maybe eventually it will get a worthwhile answer.

That is why I am asking it again.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Absolutely.

I would, however, suggest trying to ensure that there's one "normal/traditional" character, as a control comparison.

Also as a straight man in a world of zany. Or at least a party of zany. I mean, a mimic, a dragonne, and a beholder are not going to have the same outlook on life as each other or the world as a whole.

Maybe eventually it will get a worthwhile answer.

We'd have a better chance of that if people explained what was wrong with the answer given each of those dozen times.

[Blue Jay]

because of resent talk about how to rate monsters I have realized a flaw in our rating system. I have thought back through manny of the monsters we have covered and I can see no clear system of determining LA. Do you compare it to a Tire 3 build? Tire 1? does it change monster to monster? for martial should we compare them to ToB classes or Non ToB classes? do we only compare to bass classes or can we use PrCs to make a character more similar to whatever monster is being discussed.

If you take the Giant Octopus and compare it to a a Core Fighter? you should have some LA, what about ToB or a Caster? in the former maybe 0 LA and the latter negative.

I think that having a system with which to rate monsters would be very useful for us, the raters, and the people who end up using our ratings.

-Baby Gary

Inevitability has been using a niche-based approach: he takes his best guess as to what niche the monster fills best, then compares it in general terms to a single-class PC from the same niche.

It's not perfect, but it was never going to be. I think we've mostly concluded that the amount of detail needed to get every monster exactly right isn't worth the effort, because mileage always varies from table to table and campaign to campaign. On the other hand, arbitrarily picking a single tier as a universal frame of reference for all monsters is probably expecting too much consistency from this game.

[Inevitability]

To the people interested in the game: that's great! I'll be quite busy for the next few weeks, but after that I'll start a PBP recruitment thread and link to it here.

Also, some more LAs have been updated with an asterisk.

-Mohrg: was -0, now -0*
-Nightmare: was +4, now +2*
-Nightmare, Chaucemar: was -0, now -0*
-Shadow: was +4, now +3*
-Shadow, Greater: was +0, now +0*
-Shambling Mound: was -0, now -0*
-Spectre: was +1, now +1*
-Wight: was +0, now +0*
-Wraith: was +3, now +2*
-Wraith, Dread: was -0, now -0*

[Lans]

We'd have a better chance of that if people explained what was wrong with the answer given each of those dozen times.

I think if barbarian is being used to compare brute monsters, something went off along the way. Between the hags and noble salamander, octopusses, others i'm sure, seem too low.

[Jormengand]

We'd have a better chance of that if people explained what was wrong with the answer given each of those dozen times.

The fact that "This has been asked before" isn't a real answer.

[javcs]

The fact that "This has been asked before" isn't a real answer.

That doesn't explain the issues you (or anyone else) may have with prior substantive answers.

Yes, someone noting that the question has been asked and answered before would probably be more helpful if they linked to one or more of those previous instances, but the point is still valid - there are existent substantive answers, and if someone has some sort of issue with those answers, it would be helpful to know what those issues are.

[Jormengand]

That doesn't explain the issues you (or anyone else) may have with prior substantive answers.

Yes, someone noting that the question has been asked and answered before would probably be more helpful if they linked to one or more of those previous instances, but the point is still valid - there are existent substantive answers, and if someone has some sort of issue with those answers, it would be helpful to know what those issues are.

And if there are some sort of extant substantive answers, it would be damn peachy to know what those answers are too!

[GreatWyrmGold]

And if there are some sort of extant substantive answers, it would be damn peachy to know what those answers are too!

There are three possibilities.
1. You have blocked everyone who responded with some variation of "Each monster is compared to the class/niche it most resembles, with the big dumb brutes generally being compared to barbarians".
2. You haven't blocked them, but you missed them somehow.
3. You consider this answer insubstantial, and for some reason don't want to explain why, even though this would be the easiest way to get someone to address your issues with it.
The third option seems likeliest, but it does have some issues. So I'd like to hear your take on the issue, Jormengand.

[Jormengand]

"Each monster is compared to the class/niche it most resembles, with the big dumb brutes generally being compared to barbarians".

Yeah, except that that flat isn't true. Half the big dumb brutes are compared to barbarians and the other half to martial initiators. It's also stupid. A race which would have a +4 if it didn't have spellcasting because it would be compared to a monk or unarmed swordsage gets a +2 when you slap casting on it because it's compared to a druid. Rating stronger monsters with worse LAs and making inconsistent comparisons usually because it supports your preconcieved bias of how good a monster is are both a waste of time.

[flare'90]

Yeah, except that that flat isn't true. Half the big dumb brutes are compared to barbarians and the other half to martial initiators. It's also stupid. A race which would have a +4 if it didn't have spellcasting because it would be compared to a monk or unarmed swordsage gets a +2 when you slap casting on it because it's compared to a druid. Rating stronger monsters with worse LAs and making inconsistent comparisons usually because it supports your preconcieved bias of how good a monster is are both a waste of time.

So you're saying that if I have a monster with innate spellcasting I have to give it lower LA? And then I imagine I must act surprised when my players all want to play that monster intead of a spellcaster with a normal race.
The monsters are compared to the closest class for a reason, not because of preconcieved biases or whatnot you're going to pull out. If you want to give LA youself, you can make a thread. Or complain in this one, but you know what expects you.

[Jormengand]

So you're saying that if I have a monster with innate spellcasting I have to give it lower LA?

No, as I said - in the post you just quoted, no less - that is exactly not what I expect. A monster which would make an amazing monk doesn't stop making an amazing monk if you slap subpar druid casting on it, so the fact that it has druid casting shouldn't actually lower the LA because it's now being compared to a druid instead of a monk.

[flare'90]

No, as I said - in the post you just quoted, no less - that is exactly not what I expect. A monster which would make an amazing monk doesn't stop making an amazing monk if you slap subpar druid casting on it, so the fact that it has druid casting shouldn't actually lower the LA because it's now being compared to a druid instead of a monk.

Then make a list of what monster do you think have wrong assigned LA, so that can be rectified. Also maybe include what class the monster should be compared to, just to make the work easier.

[Blue Jay]

Yeah, except that that flat isn't true. Half the big dumb brutes are compared to barbarians and the other half to martial initiators. It's also stupid. A race which would have a +4 if it didn't have spellcasting because it would be compared to a monk or unarmed swordsage gets a +2 when you slap casting on it because it's compared to a druid. Rating stronger monsters with worse LAs and making inconsistent comparisons usually because it supports your preconcieved bias of how good a monster is are both a waste of time.

I agree with you, to some extent: the wide range of different reference points for different monsters makes it feel arbitrary and inconsistent, and there are definitely some flaws in the system, and some ratings that I still disagree with. But on the other hand, I feel like Inevitability's LA's are generally much better and more playable than the official LA's. Besides, it would have been unrealistic to expect complete satisfaction: there are just too many different players with different perspectives and experiences with the game, all of whom expect to have input on the decision making; and there are too many different variables to account for when rating each monster.

Overall, I think Inevitability did a great job on this thread, and this was very much a successful and worthwhile project. Especially being able to keep it going this long, and managing to repeatedly avoid derailment while still allowing enough latitude for thorough discussions... this was not a trivial accomplishment.

I think it would have been nice to incorporate tiers or niches more thoroughly. Perhaps, like ExLibrisMortis suggested, we could have made a tier-adjusted LA by evaluating how a given monster could contribute to an all-tier-1 party, an all-tier-2 party, etc; and assigned an LA for each tier. That would take considerably more effort though, so you can't really blame Inevitability for not doing something like that.

[ExLibrisMortis]

I have suggested before that each monster should be rated in each tier. That is, of course, way too much work--as I also noted at the time--but it will give the more accurate result. Extending that idea, you can rate each monster in each niche or for each class, which is even more work, but also more accurate (and it can replace the associated class rules).

The problem is not that this thread isn't operating on a good set of guidelines, the problem is that you can't boil LA down to one number. Now, I'm guessing Jormengand is going to rate each monster for monk and truenamer, to get a good start going, but I don't think we'll find so many volunteers for the rest.

[Remuko]

No, as I said - in the post you just quoted, no less - that is exactly not what I expect. A monster which would make an amazing monk doesn't stop making an amazing monk if you slap subpar druid casting on it, so the fact that it has druid casting shouldn't actually lower the LA because it's now being compared to a druid instead of a monk.

The problem is, most people if they play a monster are gonna play it in a role/class that supports what its good at, so if it has racial casting its gonna probably try to be a caster or gish not a monk. The ratings are meant to be for what its closest to because thats what its likely to be played as/with. Sure if something has innate casting and you rate it against sorcerer but someone wants to play it as a fighter or Samurai it will be weaker, but so would any race playing something its not suited towards and if the DM thinks that warrants an altered LA in that specific case, then thats on them. This is not about such rare cases, so LA arent assigned that way.

[GreatWyrmGold]

I'd like to thank Jormengand for explaining the problems with the standard answer, which allows this discussion to at last progress beyond "What's the standard?" "Depends on the niche." "Where's the answer?"

Yeah, except that that flat isn't true. Half the big dumb brutes are compared to barbarians and the other half to martial initiators.

That is a problem. I'm not sure why that's happening.

It's also stupid. A race which would have a +4 if it didn't have spellcasting because it would be compared to a monk or unarmed swordsage gets a +2 when you slap casting on it because it's compared to a druid.

Can you point to when this happened?