Drow Level Adjustments?


Rules Questions


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The new Bestiary lists two different types of Drow usable as characters. If using these for a player character, they seem out of balance with one another. I am likely just missing something as, I'll admit, I didn't look that hard before posting :P

There are regular drow and there are drow nobles. Drow nobles have better ability scores, higher spell resistance, and more spell-like abilities, however I see no indication of a "level adjustment" or equivalent modifier between the two even though the noble is considerably more powerful. For a player character, why would you -not- choose to use the noble character rules if there appears to be no level modifier?

Again, I'm probably just missing something. Could someone simply point me in the right direction?

Thanks!
-Brad

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Level adjustments and ECLs are not a part of the Pathfinder game. Your GM has the say in what races are available for use as PCs; we presented two versions of the drow so that a GM could allow the less powerful one if he wanted. Appendix 4 of the Bestiary and Chapter 12 of the Pathfinder Core RPG give a few more guidelines on playing non-core races.


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
James Jacobs wrote:
Level adjustments and ECLs are not a part of the Pathfinder game. Your GM has the say in what races are available for use as PCs; we presented two versions of the drow so that a GM could allow the less powerful one if he wanted. Appendix 4 of the Bestiary and Chapter 12 of the Pathfinder Core RPG give a few more guidelines on playing non-core races.

Ah, okay thanks James! I was just used to the 3.5 system adjudicating level adjustments in order to help balance some races with others. It did so poorly, so I'm glad you guys avoided it and basically made it "We'll give you multiple options. What you choose is at the GM's discretion." It seems much better and far less messy this way.

Thanks!
-Brad


Personally, based on their power level, I would allow "common" drow as player characters - though there's still the whole "does this fit with things in general" thing to consider.

If one wanted to play a noble, I'd probably require that trade-off levels: You must take one level of commoner within the first 3 levels, and probably another before within the first 5.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

If you go by the rules on page 313 of the Bestiary, you find the two Drow races are CR+0 and CR+1 respectively.

If applied as per page 313 the Noble Drow is essentially similar to an old school LA+1 race.


James Risner wrote:

If you go by the rules on page 313 of the Bestiary, you find the two Drow races are CR+0 and CR+1 respectively.

If applied as per page 313 the Noble Drow is essentially similar to an old school LA+1 race.

I would use +2 LA (as in 3.5E). One for the high SR and one for the rest of the abilities. After some lvls i would drop the LA by 1 by slowering the xp progression of the player. I would never drop his LA to 0 because the high SR is always usefull.

Or maybe i would never drop his LA because the "new" drow has even more abilities than the "old one"


PRD wrote:
There are a number of monsters in this book that do not possess racial Hit Dice. Such creatures are the best options for player characters, but a few of them are so powerful that they count as having 1 class level, even without a racial Hit Die. Such characters should only be allowed in a group that is 2nd-level or higher.


Has someone tested the "consider CR as character levels" rule from Appendix 4, by the way? It can be ok at lower levels, but at higher ones I am worried that it might not hold very well - i.e. when larger dragons, giants and the like enter into play.

Also, how applicable is this rule with templates that change their CR modifier depending on hit dice, such as half-fiend?


The Shaman wrote:

Has someone tested the "consider CR as character levels" rule from Appendix 4, by the way? It can be ok at lower levels, but at higher ones I am worried that it might not hold very well - i.e. when larger dragons, giants and the like enter into play.

Also, how applicable is this rule with templates that change their CR modifier depending on hit dice, such as half-fiend?

My players have been rebuilding their characters for pathfinder. Half-Giant/Half-Dragon cleric/paladin, Noble-Drow something (player keeps changing his mind what he wants to play), Duerger duskblade, Woodling catfolk druid.

So far, seems to work very well. The woodling catfolk was being severely penalized under the old system (She had a +3 ECL template) but at 9th level that +3 was no longer any bonus, and she was consistently having problems keeping up. Under the new rules, that +3 ECL was a +2 CR, which dropped off at level 6 to be just a +1 CR (Permanent). She's now staying one level behind everyone else, and that seems at higher levels a much more appropriate handicap. Same thing for the half-dragon.

Haven't tested the noble-drow in play (new character), so that's up in the air. I have this funny suspicion the noble drow needs to be where the woodling is, 1 level down (IE: +2 CR to start). The player has already said he suspects the same thing and is ok with not leveling at say, level 10 or 11 if that's the case.

Basically, so far, the CR logic seems to work nicely, if the CR is accurate, is what I guess I'm saying.


I don't know how many other people feel this way but personally, I'm glad as both a player and a DM that they've done away with the LA rules.

Here are my reasons:
1.) The MM is not a book of alternate PC races. I think the first folly of any DM is just letting PCs pick and choose Monsters out of the MM as PC races.
2.) This puts some measure of control back in the DMs hands when it comes to his campaign world. Its your responsibility to decide what is and is not appropriate.
3.) Now if the DM lets you play a monster as a race, you as the player no longer get boned by LA + Hit Dice.
4.) Hopefully this will cut down an "filler races". (Races that are similar but less powerful than the monsters they're based on). "The Watcher", essentially a toned down Gargoyle, is a good example of this. This is not to say these were not valid idea's for alternate PC races, but one has to wonder whether it was created because no one wanted to play a +5 LA with 4 Racial HD.

Like I said, personally I like this move on PF part. Normally I don't allow monsters as PC, because they're monsters. This now lets me decide what I feel is appropriate.

What I would like to see is some new alternate PC races, kinda like a Races of Eberon book. Something were we don't just offer several alternate elves for PCs to choose from, but new fantasy races altogether.


Anthony Kane wrote:

I don't know how many other people feel this way but personally, I'm glad as both a player and a DM that they've done away with the LA rules.

They were a pain, but better than nothing. They worked ok for +1 to +3 (if you used the Unearthed Arcana buy-off rules) and there were no racial hit dice. With those caveats, they were ok.

Anthony Kane wrote:


Here are my reasons:
1.) The MM is not a book of alternate PC races. I think the first folly of any DM is just letting PCs pick and choose Monsters out of the MM as PC races.

For actual monsters, I agree, I don't really want someone playing a beholder in my game, or a black dragon. For sentient creatures though, especially the more humanoid ones (drow, duerger, centaurs, goblin, kobold, etc) I think they make fine races, so long as you aren't playing in a humans only world.

Anthony Kane wrote:


3.) Now if the DM lets you play a monster as a race, you as the player no longer get boned by LA + Hit Dice.

Yep, this I can agree with, the more I'm using the p313 rules, the more I like them as a start. But... they are only as accurate as the CR, and I don't think they will work well beyond CR 4.

Anthony Kane wrote:


4.) Hopefully this will cut down an "filler races". (Races that are similar but less powerful than the monsters they're based on). "The Watcher", essentially a toned down Gargoyle, is a good example of this. This is not to say these were not valid idea's for alternate PC races, but one has to wonder whether it was created because no one wanted to play a +5 LA with 4 Racial HD.

I think it had to be looked at on a case by case basis. The Changeling for example I liked a lot, very much like a Tiefling or Aasimar, someone with monster blood in their veins, but not a half-monster or full monster.

Anthony Kane wrote:


Like I said, personally I like this move on PF part. Normally I don't allow monsters as PC, because they're monsters. This now lets me decide what I feel is appropriate.

Not to argue, but the GM was always, even in 3.0/3.5 the final arbiter of what races were in the game.

Anthony Kane wrote:


What I would like to see is some new alternate PC races, kinda like a Races of Eberon book. Something were we don't just offer several alternate elves for PCs to choose from, but new fantasy races altogether.

I wouldn't mind this at all myself, and I'm hoping when they do a 'Savage Species' replacement that there's a chapter or two on alternate 1st level non-adjusted races. Maybe two pages per race, and move some of the easily used monster manual races over to it (Aasimar, Teifling, Drow, Duerger, etc) and give some fluff similar to what is in the Core book and then the stats.

EDIT: And some new racial types. Reptialian, insectoid, plant, goliath type (treated as large), something small (pixie type tiny playable fey race for example), catfolk, amphibian, etc.


I understand the caution in CR use (monster vs 4 PC) as a guide however it has seems with Paizo tighting down the CR system for a third iteration you have a much more reliable base.

I think another important point with monster PCs is to look at what the can at a 'level' vs what a normal PC can. Pesudodragons come to mind as a low CR creature that has flight, which doesn't show up till 5th level for typical PCs. It will thus break some lowerer level challenges.

I guess a flipside question, has anyone started Stating PC class like they were monsters and figuring thier CR by level?


"There are a number of monsters in this book that do not possess racial Hit Dice. Such creatures are the best options for player characters, but a few of them are so powerful that they count as having 1 class level, even without a racial Hit Die. Such characters should only be allowed in a group that is 2nd-level or higher."

This is from page 313-314 of the beastiary. I am in a group of rules-lawyerish folks. What does it mean "they count as having 1 class level, even without a racial hit die"? which ones? how do I know which ones from looking at a beastiary entry? Neither drow seems to have any racial hit die, therefore, by the rule on 313-314, they are both fine as starting races with no adjustment.

There seems to be no hard fast rule to indicate that the two different drow are different at all as far as "legal playability". In fact taking the rules on page 313-314 verbatim, they are balanced to each other.

I realize this is obviously not the case, the noble drow is far more powerful. But shouldn't there BE a rule thats a little more cut and dry? Or is there and I'm not seeing it?

If the answer is "we didnt make a rule so that you as a DM could make one" then okay, but that seems to leave me hanging a bit as a DM, with no rules to back me up or affirm my decision. What if I'm a dm who doesn't have an encyclopedic knowledge of monster abilities and balance (what IF i was ;-P ). Both drow have one HD from their class (or classes in the noble's case), just like the Elf from the core rule book gets one HD from its class. So if I didn't know better as a DM the book would seem to encourage me to allow it, and the book would be wrong..


The rule is: There are no real player races in the Bestiary but as DM, you can fudge it for the players if you feel you can work it out appropriately.


SurlyJoe wrote:

"There are a number of monsters in this book that do not possess racial Hit Dice. Such creatures are the best options for player characters, but a few of them are so powerful that they count as having 1 class level, even without a racial Hit Die. Such characters should only be allowed in a group that is 2nd-level or higher."

This is from page 313-314 of the beastiary. I am in a group of rules-lawyerish folks. What does it mean "they count as having 1 class level, even without a racial hit die"? which ones? how do I know which ones from looking at a beastiary entry? Neither drow seems to have any racial hit die, therefore, by the rule on 313-314, they are both fine as starting races with no adjustment.

There seems to be no hard fast rule to indicate that the two different drow are different at all as far as "legal playability". In fact taking the rules on page 313-314 verbatim, they are balanced to each other.

I realize this is obviously not the case, the noble drow is far more powerful. But shouldn't there BE a rule thats a little more cut and dry? Or is there and I'm not seeing it?

If the answer is "we didnt make a rule so that you as a DM could make one" then okay, but that seems to leave me hanging a bit as a DM, with no rules to back me up or affirm my decision. What if I'm a dm who doesn't have an encyclopedic knowledge of monster abilities and balance (what IF i was ;-P ). Both drow have one HD from their class (or classes in the noble's case), just like the Elf from the core rule book gets one HD from its class. So if I didn't know better as a DM the book would seem to encourage me to allow it, and the book would be wrong..

There is no real rule because not all monsters of equal CR are equally valuable as PC's. Not all Monster HD are equal either. The suggest using CR as the new EL, but that is a suggestion only if you insist on giving the player the race.


Umbral Reaver wrote:
The rule is: There are no real player races in the Bestiary but as DM, you can fudge it for the players if you feel you can work it out appropriately.

lol ok, i suppose i was overthinking it, I'm one of those weird guys who likes the minutia and rules technicalities.


sometimes, a player asks me for playing a "monster race", mostly drows/duergars/ and such, so instead of punishing him for playing a "rare" race, i often ask for a plausible background for that character and usually "tone up" the other players a bit, so they dont feel lagging behind.-

Liberty's Edge

unopened wrote:
sometimes, a player asks me for playing a "monster race", mostly drows/duergars/ and such, so instead of punishing him for playing a "rare" race, i often ask for a plausible background for that character and usually "tone up" the other players a bit, so they dont feel lagging behind.-

A truly excellent strategy! With enough of a background, you can even help enhance the character's role-playing experience by adding elements of his past.


3rd level stirge rogue anyone?


Pendagast wrote:
3rd level stirge rogue anyone?

I'm wanting a "Like" button right now.

Liberty's Edge

DrDew wrote:
Pendagast wrote:
3rd level stirge rogue anyone?
I'm wanting a "Like" button right now.

All in good fun!


The Shaman wrote:

Has someone tested the "consider CR as character levels" rule from Appendix 4, by the way? It can be ok at lower levels, but at higher ones I am worried that it might not hold very well - i.e. when larger dragons, giants and the like enter into play.

Also, how applicable is this rule with templates that change their CR modifier depending on hit dice, such as half-fiend?

I can say for a fact that it holds up fairly well. Better than 3.5's "HD+LA" crap that's for sure. Such creatures are actually fairly playable.

It's not perfect by any stretch, and requires some rules tweaking by the GM if you're a balance nut (as I am), but I pllayed in a campaign as a metalic dragon, among a few other monstrous PC's and a human one. Some of us were a bit weaker compared to the human we were playing with, some were a bit stronger, but the difference never seemed to quite equate to one full class level.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
The Shaman wrote:

Has someone tested the "consider CR as character levels" rule from Appendix 4, by the way? It can be ok at lower levels, but at higher ones I am worried that it might not hold very well - i.e. when larger dragons, giants and the like enter into play.

Also, how applicable is this rule with templates that change their CR modifier depending on hit dice, such as half-fiend?

I can say for a fact that it holds up fairly well. Better than 3.5's "HD+LA" crap that's for sure. Such creatures are actually fairly playable.

It's not perfect by any stretch, and requires some rules tweaking by the GM if you're a balance nut (as I am), but I pllayed in a campaign as a metalic dragon, among a few other monstrous PC's and a human one. Some of us were a bit weaker compared to the human we were playing with, some were a bit stronger, but the difference never seemed to quite equate to one full class level.

I would like to add to this. I ran a monster campaign for almost 2 years. We switched to PF half-way through.

It was much better under PF than 3.5, and we had a lot less issues under PF than under 3.5. The CR worked WAY better than the HD+LA+CL of 3.5. The biggest CR adjust we had at level 12 was a +2 CR adjust, the smallest a +0 CR adjust, and no issues with balance between characters that didn't come down to design choice as opposed to system mechanics.


Pendagast wrote:
3rd level stirge rogue anyone?

"You rang?"

Advanced Giant Stirge Rogue 3:

CR 5; XP 1,600
N Small magical beast
Init +10; Senses darkvision 60 ft., low-light vision, scent; Perception +9 (+10 to find traps)

DEFENSE
AC 22, touch 17, flat-footed 16 (+6 Dex, +5 natural, +1 size)
hp 34 (1d10+3 plus 3d8+9)
Fort +6, Ref +11, Will +4
Defensive Abilities evasion, trap sense +1

OFFENSE
Speed 10 ft., fly 40 ft. (average)
Melee touch +10 (attach)
Special Attacks blood drain, sneak attack +2d6

STATISTICS
Str 13, Dex 23, Con 16, Int 9, Wis 16, Cha 14
Base Atk +3; CMB +8 (+16 grapple when attached); CMD 16 (24 vs. trip)
Feats Agile Maneuvers (B), Improved Intiative, Weapon Finesse
Skills Acrobatics +12, Disable Device +13, Escape Artist +12, Fly +8, Linguistics +5, Perception +9 (+10 to find traps), Sleight of Hand +12, Stealth +17, Use Magic Device +8
Languages Common, Goblin, Undercommon
SQ diseased, trapfinding +1

SPECIAL ABILITIES
Attach (Ex): When a stirge hits with a touch attack, its barbed legs latch onto the target, anchoring it in place. An attached stirge is effectively grappling its prey. The stirge loses its Dexterity bonus to AC, but holds on with great tenacity and inserts its proboscis into the grappled target's flesh. A stirge has a +8 racial bonus to maintain its grapple on a foe once it is attached. An attached stirge can be struck with a weapon or grappled itself. If its prey manages to win a grapple check or Escape Artist check against it, the stirge is removed.

Blood Drain (Ex): A stirge drains blood at the end of its turn if it is attached to a foe, inflicting 1d2 points of Constitution damage. Once a stirge has dealt 8 points of Constitution damage, it detaches and flies off to digest the meal. If its victim dies before the stirge's appetite has been sated, the stirge detaches and seeks a new target.

Diseased (Ex): Due to the stagnant swamps in which they live and their contact with the blood of numerous creatures, stirges are harbingers of disease. Any creature subjected to a stirge's blood drain attack has a 10% chance of being exposed to filth fever, blinding sickness, or a similar disease. Once this check is made, the victim can no longer be infected by this particular stirge, though attacks by different stirges are resolved normally and may result in multiple illnesses.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Drow Level Adjustments? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.