Creative Director
|
Im not sure if this has been answered fully, but how do you officially handle creatures who have level adjustment. There is no penalty now, so how do you balance the non-core races to core races.
In the Rules as Written and as designed, the answer's simple. We don't. The non-core races aren't intended to be Player Races, but NPCs and monsters. That said, we DO generally try to make sure that the races that lack racial HD such as goblins and orcs and tieflings and the like are roughly equivalent to the PC races, so it should be no problem mixing those races with any from the Core rules. Once monsters start getting racial HD, though, like gnolls or ogres or bugbears, things start to get sketchy quick and are less and less viable choices as PC races.
orcs and goblins are easy to handle since their abilites pretty much fall into line with core race abilities. However there are a couple of races whose powers are alot stronger take for example Svirfniblin. They have SR, strong spell abilities, a +2 to all saves, and a continous Non-Detection to say the least. I know they are rare and it isnt advisable for them to be PC characters, but say an NPC Svirfniblin travels with the party on a long term basis. How would Xp and level advancement be handled for such a character, without the gm resorting to getting lazy and just adjucating at his own whim when such a creature levels up
It would have to be the GM's call to determine how they wish to handle it. You could choose to use the previous LA to determine what level the svirfneblin should be compared to the party, but that might not be the best option.
As an NPC, most of those abilities that gave the svirfneblin that high level adjustment were defensive in nature and only effected themselves. The other abilities they have are blindness/deafness and blur (which they could cast on others).
It would be my opinion that if you had a 9th level (12th level if one adds the level adjustment) svirfneblin tagging along with a 13th level party, they would find that the svirfneblin to be largely just something that is slowing them down. At that point, almost all of the svirfneblin's abilities would be overshadowed by what the party could be doing and that all the other special abilities might be doinging is make up a bit for the svirfneblin's loss of defensive abilities for those three levels. I would think that it would just be better if one ignored the level adjustment and just made it two levels lower than the party and just adjust it later on (if it is necessary) if the NPC had to stay with the party longer than I expected.
But I think that is the point, level adjustment isn't a perfect answer and it certainly less preferable to me than a GM adjusting the rules for the character for their own game. Level adjustment sometimes worked, but in my mind it had to really fall upon the GM to make it work for their game. Right now, I would say pretty much the same thing, that it still falls upon the GM to get it right for their game, and that the lack of level adjustment doesn't really change anything important.
|
Well perhaps a solution would be to have a slower Xp chart for the stronger LA races. Level wise not at full strength with the party, but their racial powers make up for this small gap.
The book provides three different paces for advancement. You could run the LA race on a slower one than the others if that's what you want. I personally don't like to punish players for being creative and would rather offer the other players bonus feats or extra stat modifiers for their characters. Another possible option would be to give non-LA races more traits or require negative traits/flaws (as presented in Tome of Secrets) for LA character, but again that would be penalizing the player.
A good rule I've always enforced in my home games is setting a maximum LA at the time of creation or when making a new character. Players creating a new character after losing one or starting a group off at higher level allows for some room to work which becomes a matter of finding the right mix. One of the biggest problems related to LA races in 3.5 was that they were rated based on their special powers and often had too much restriction placed on them, tending to end up weaker in the end as the character advanced. Those tricks don't always come into play or work as well at higher levels against bigger monsters, suddenly making the character not as exciting as the player thought they might be. If you set a LA limit you'll find that the flaws might not be as bad down the road for the player. Add to that working though character creation as a group and you'll find a balance that won't cause problems amongst the players while letting everyone play what they want.
While LA is not officially part of PFRPG. What prevents a GM from using LA in his/her game? It's just part of the backwards-compatability feature as far as I can see.
The book mentions "how" they handle it on p.406 - it basically gives a list of creatures that should be OK to run run as PCs (goblin, hobgoblin, etc.) and then a list of ones that are slightly more buff (gnoll, lizardfolk, drow) and says "If someone wants to play one of these you should probably let people choosing normal or list 1 races start at level 2."
Of course this doesn't necessarily scale to high LA races but it's quick dirty and good enough without fiddling with different XP tables and the like.
One of the biggest problems related to LA races in 3.5 was that they were rated based on their special powers and often had too much restriction placed on them, tending to end up weaker in the end as the character advanced. Those tricks don't always come into play or work as well at higher levels against bigger monsters, suddenly making the character not as exciting as the player thought they might be.
Yeah, this is why I felt like the LA system was broken in 3.5e. Stuff like "Centaur: +4 LA." It made sense only at level 1 because of the 4 extra HD, but pretty much immediately after it was just a way to say "I suck way more than everyone of my level!"
Which is why I've started looking a other options to handle LA.
The one I currently like right now for 'Monsters' with large numbers of racial HD but a small LA in 3.5 is to use the Pathfinder Negative levels and have the PC's 'buy them off' as it were by leveling up normally until they get to the correct level for the ECL... still working on imbalanced stats and crazy powers
|
Creative Director
|
While LA is not officially part of PFRPG. What prevents a GM from using LA in his/her game? It's just part of the backwards-compatability feature as far as I can see.
Absolutely nothing. Apart from the fact that the GM will need to create his own LA values for new monsters or re-balanced monsters we publish.
There used to be some fan created breakdowns out there for determining LA and such... I remember them being talked about back on the WotC boards. Anyone remember those at all? They could probably be helpfull in recreating a LA based system.
|
|
If you take at look at UpperKrust's CR system, it quantifies abilities and shows what they're worth on a per-level basis. Then you just have to figure out how they match up to the starting point of a non LA race, and use that as your baseline.
The best system I've seen is to use the above-mentioned system and break the races down into classes that match character classes in power. Since Pathfinder classes are more beefy than standard 3.5e core classes, you'd need to work it out for the pathfinder classes first to see what kind of power level youre going for. You need to make an ECL 0 base starting point for it first.
"Essentially, you pare down the race to a one that would be balanced for a +0LA race, then break up the remaining benefits that race gains that would normally give it a LA over several "racial" levels. These racial levels don't count towards favored class penalties, but DO count as PC levels.
In the original SS form, the PC would have to take all of those levels first before taking any class levels. And in addition, those levels didn't necessarily grant everything a normal class level might, like HD.
In AU/AE, the levels are fully fleshed-out levels with HD and all at each level. However, a PC 1) need not take any levels in that "Racial class" before taking a character class, 2) need not take them all at the same time, and 3) need not take them at all- just like a regular character class. Use the MM list of types and subtypes to determine HD type, BAB & save progressions, weapon & armor proficiencies, etc. for their racial levels." ~DannyAlcatraz, ENWorld Forums. That's the Idea, and as for figuring out how many levels it should be, that's what UpperKrust's CR rules are for.
You need to drop anything that's at will and turn it into a numbered power. Things should have very few outright immunities. fire Giants shouldn't have fire immunity, they should have a very high amount of fire resistance.
For Hit Dice, don't feel a need to preserve the number of hit dice, getting the right average number of hitpoints is good enough for making the class levels.
It's work, but it's a system that makes a monster into a viable class.
If all the monsters were designed using this type of system, even if it was less accurate than the well defined UK system, designing them as an ECL 0 race + a class makes them viable to players and makes pegging the "LA" to be easy.
For races with an LA and no Hit dice, use UK's system, and make a class that gives no hit points, or design a class that gives hitpoints anyways.
|
it is a real shame that LA was removed. my players and i really enjoy having the option to play anything. it was a great positive point about d&d 3x. we never found the mechanic difficult to implement. HD + LA + class level = the end. easy peasy lemon squeezy.
the rules as written are not very clear. i believe there is a large enough section of the community who would appreciate more of an effort to clarify and include more options for "monster race" playability.
paragraph 3, page 314 of the bestiary gives some basic information about how to level up monster pcs in mixed groups. it could use a bit more clarity and perhaps another example.
i never cared for ss way of turning races into leveled classes.
|
it is a real shame that LA was removed. my players and i really enjoy having the option to play anything. it was a great positive point about d&d 3x. we never found the mechanic difficult to implement. HD + LA + class level = the end. easy peasy lemon squeezy.
the rules as written are not very clear. i believe there is a large enough section of the community who would appreciate more of an effort to clarify and include more options for "monster race" playability.
paragraph 3, page 314 of the bestiary gives some basic information about how to level up monster pcs in mixed groups. it could use a bit more clarity and perhaps another example.
i never cared for ss way of turning races into leveled classes.
The major problem with LA races is that having, say, SR and a few SLA's and +2 natural armor is a Big Deal at character level 1 compared to other races, and warrants a +1 LA.
Now at, say, level 12, nobody cares any more about your SR (because you can get it via spell/item) or about your SLA's (because doing a magic missile 3/day is no longer swinging the game in your favor) or about your +2 nat armor (because everybody hits you anyway). And suddenly you find yourself a level (half bad) or more (very bad) behind everybody else in exchange for a couple of perks that no longer have any impact on the game.
|
Creative Director
|
it is a real shame that LA was removed. my players and i really enjoy having the option to play anything. it was a great positive point about d&d 3x. we never found the mechanic difficult to implement. HD + LA + class level = the end. easy peasy lemon squeezy.
The option to play anything remains just as much a part of the game as it did before. Removing the LA system, which was far too easily abused, simply gives the power of "yes/no" back to the GM.
If an "LA" type system is to work, it can't be a mere half page of rules and a simple number at the end of a stat block, because not every monster is created equally as regards usability and balance as a player character. If an "LA" system is to work, it needs to be VERY detailed and thought out... it needs to be its own book, in other words.
I suspect that we'll do a book like this someday... but since our campaign setting is built with the assumption that players play one of the core humanoid races, it's not a book we're particularly rushing to get to work on. We'd rather produce rulebooks that support our setting first, and then branch out into the ones that don't so much later on.
In the meantime, though, the way that monsters fundamentally work is still the same as the fundamental way player characters work. They all have ability scores and skills and feats and saves and all that. So if you want to play a strange creature... it's not us you need to ask. It's your GM.
Take the rules for monster PCs as presented in the Core Pathfinder material. Then toss in the Savage Species monster class. Season with intelligently building the monster class to be roughly equal to its equivalent PC class. Bake for a varying amount of work on the part of the DM and or Player.
Serve your functional, playable, and balanced monster class!
Seriously, my Pathfinder rules Savage Tide game has a Human Summoner, an Elven Ranger, a Sahuagain Alchemist, and a Storm Giant.
So far, the Summoner has been the most powerful. The Elf is if anything the weakest, and the next most powerful is probably the Sahuagain, but he is definitely in the "appropriate" level. The Storm Giant (currently halfway through racial HD and Large with 1/day Chain Lightning at CL 5) is arguably the most balanced character. Despite having 11 HD while the rest of the party is level 7, her combat capability is right about the same as a level 7 fighter.
|
|
I suspect that we'll do a book like this someday... but since our campaign setting is built with the assumption that players play one of the core humanoid races, it's not a book we're particularly rushing to get to work on. We'd rather produce rulebooks that support our setting first, and then branch out into the ones that don't so much later on.
that, sir, is a book i would most certainly buy and encourage my players to buy.
| 5 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. |
If you look in the Bestiary, towards the end, there is a 'Monster PCs' section. It's not perfect, but it works pretty well as a stop gap measure until Paizo puts out a monster book (Still voting for SK Reynolds for that one, even if I don't agree with him about take 20 rolls). I've done a monster campaign for almost 2 years (currently on hiatus), and the last 6 months of it were in PF with the version of the rules in the Bestiary for Monstrous PCs, and it worked pretty well.
One question that's never has answered (which I'll ask again here since it's on topic for the thread), is how do the rules in the Bestiary for Monster PCs work when the monster has a template? Specifically the Half-Fiend and Half-Celestial templates, which have different CR's based on Hit Dice.
Yeah, this is why I felt like the LA system was broken in 3.5e. Stuff like "Centaur: +4 LA." It made sense only at level 1 because of the 4 extra HD, but pretty much immediately after it was just a way to say "I suck way more than everyone of my level!"
The fact that really made that system broken was that each racial HD also counted as a level on top of the LA. So a 1st-level Centaur PC was supposedly equivalent to a 7th-level character (4HD + 2 LA), which is really just absurd.. Especially on the caster-type monsters, which would end up being multiple spell-levels behind an ordinary Human spellcaster.