drnuncheon
Explorer
Spatula said:
Actually, it's my error - I was looking only at the ECL stuff in the front (which deals only with 1hd creatures), and not at the Monster Levels section in the back.
J
ECL of Monsters Part III: Are Ogres ECL 8? The Adventures of Ghorgor.
- Thread starter Mal Malenkirk
- Start date
Actually, it's my error - I was looking only at the ECL stuff in the front (which deals only with 1hd creatures), and not at the Monster Levels section in the back.
J
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Apologies
Noting that the Ogre is playing under house rules and is not really a 40 pt. buy:
It may be instructive to look at how the other PCs would compare without the house rules in place. IE, figure out what sort of point buy it would take to build them without the house rules. We now have a point buy equivalent for the Ogre. Perhaps the Ogre has made more effective use of the house rules? Or perhaps less! Of course, in any case I think it accounts for maybe +/- 1 ECL, not 3.
Marshall said:
Noting that the Ogre is playing under house rules and is not really a 40 pt. buy:
It may be instructive to look at how the other PCs would compare without the house rules in place. IE, figure out what sort of point buy it would take to build them without the house rules. We now have a point buy equivalent for the Ogre. Perhaps the Ogre has made more effective use of the house rules? Or perhaps less! Of course, in any case I think it accounts for maybe +/- 1 ECL, not 3.
Marshall
First Post
Mal Malenkirk said:
Well Yeah. But according to what you wrote, Those are the stats before adding attribute increases.
Then we get to a house rule, which sorta invalidates your playtesting. You even changed your house rule to accomadate the higher ECL.
Basically, youre pulling a Micheal Jordan. Youre great at whatever game your playing, but its not the one the rest of the people on the court are playing. This is not a comment on your game, but with the extra attribute point increases, you skew the data you get from your experiment.
Mal Malenkirk
First Post
The important thing to keep in mind is that everyone has 2 more bonus attribute points than Ghorgor.
twjensen; Let's assume we ignore the 2 standard attribute bonus points you get for being level 11 and include the 3 houserule bonus points into the CP cost;
Ghorgor is 40.
The wizard is 41
The Cleric is 40
The fighter is 40
The wizard, cleric and fighter of course now have 2 bonus attribute over this.
I don't have the other PCs stat fresh in memory. Those who decided to spread their bonus attributes points amongst several stats are probably under 40. But then this gives them high stats all around, which is not bad.
twjensen; Let's assume we ignore the 2 standard attribute bonus points you get for being level 11 and include the 3 houserule bonus points into the CP cost;
Ghorgor is 40.
The wizard is 41
The Cleric is 40
The fighter is 40
The wizard, cleric and fighter of course now have 2 bonus attribute over this.
I don't have the other PCs stat fresh in memory. Those who decided to spread their bonus attributes points amongst several stats are probably under 40. But then this gives them high stats all around, which is not bad.
Last edited:
Mal Malenkirk
First Post
I'll admit it would be better if I was using 25 points and 1 bonus attribute every 4 levels.
But is my opinion, though, that under such circumstances Ghorgor would be relatively stronger in combat. If STR and CON are reduced accross the board, the ogre gets more value out of his +10 to STR and +4 to CON.
And at least I am using CP generation. If you are so quick to dismiss my playtesting based on such a slight variation between PCs, what will happen when the average gamer uses 4D6 to generate PCs?
Last time I used this method, two players rolled the following sets;
Player A
18, 16, 16, 15, 14, 14
Player B
15, 14, 12, 11, 9, 8
Should player A be ECL 2? And what happen if either A or B decides to play a monster? How will they compare?
But is my opinion, though, that under such circumstances Ghorgor would be relatively stronger in combat. If STR and CON are reduced accross the board, the ogre gets more value out of his +10 to STR and +4 to CON.
And at least I am using CP generation. If you are so quick to dismiss my playtesting based on such a slight variation between PCs, what will happen when the average gamer uses 4D6 to generate PCs?
Last time I used this method, two players rolled the following sets;
Player A
18, 16, 16, 15, 14, 14
Player B
15, 14, 12, 11, 9, 8
Should player A be ECL 2? And what happen if either A or B decides to play a monster? How will they compare?
Axiomatic Unicorn
First Post
Re: Re: Apologies
a 'realistic" fanstasy campaign? Forced into oxymorons already?
And if the game allows ogres it would be absurd to assume that ogre sized weapons are not available. Even more so in a game system where the ability of characters to obtain custom enchanted gear is built into the rules.
If you want to house rule that ogre have a hard time getting weapons, then by all means lower the ECL. But we are talking about the WoTC standard here, not your restrictions.
Why will it weaken? Anything the human fighter can do, the ogre can also do. It remains equalt to 3.5 times the specialization bonus, I don't hear anyoen complaining about that feat.
If the +7 damage bonus was the only thing he had going I would not claim they were worth +8 ECL. The entire package IS worth +8.
One: The game is designed to fit the core classes. If an new race exceeds the core races (especially in something as core to the game as combat) then it would be unbalanced at least, broken at worst.
Two: If I want to play a human who is simply, a great fighter, I should have that option. To have someone else jump in and get to play an Ogre AND be a better fighter than me would SUCK. Any fool DM who allows that may as well place a sign on the table: "Any player wanting to be the front line fighter, get your Ogre stats here."
As to the ogre's thumb, it will only go where the player's brain leads.
If you want to make life hard for the ogre or simply screw the core classes, the make the ECLs lower. I have several times now pointed out that for DM's to house rule the ECL lower would cause no harm. But for the ECLs to be officially to low, forcing balanced DMs to raise them, would be disruptive. Not once has anyone provided a counter to this claim.
In the end, I see your arguements as little more than saying "No it isn't", without coming close to establishing a firm arguement. Your dispute of my points requires assumptions well outside the reasonable and your dispute with Mal seems much more centered on attacking the character he posted than establishing a valid ECL.
If you post a reasoned position, I will be more than happy to consider it.
Marshall said:
a 'realistic" fanstasy campaign? Forced into oxymorons already?
And if the game allows ogres it would be absurd to assume that ogre sized weapons are not available. Even more so in a game system where the ability of characters to obtain custom enchanted gear is built into the rules.
If you want to house rule that ogre have a hard time getting weapons, then by all means lower the ECL. But we are talking about the WoTC standard here, not your restrictions.
Why will it weaken? Anything the human fighter can do, the ogre can also do. It remains equalt to 3.5 times the specialization bonus, I don't hear anyoen complaining about that feat.
If the +7 damage bonus was the only thing he had going I would not claim they were worth +8 ECL. The entire package IS worth +8.
One: The game is designed to fit the core classes. If an new race exceeds the core races (especially in something as core to the game as combat) then it would be unbalanced at least, broken at worst.
Two: If I want to play a human who is simply, a great fighter, I should have that option. To have someone else jump in and get to play an Ogre AND be a better fighter than me would SUCK. Any fool DM who allows that may as well place a sign on the table: "Any player wanting to be the front line fighter, get your Ogre stats here."
As to the ogre's thumb, it will only go where the player's brain leads.
If you want to make life hard for the ogre or simply screw the core classes, the make the ECLs lower. I have several times now pointed out that for DM's to house rule the ECL lower would cause no harm. But for the ECLs to be officially to low, forcing balanced DMs to raise them, would be disruptive. Not once has anyone provided a counter to this claim.
In the end, I see your arguements as little more than saying "No it isn't", without coming close to establishing a firm arguement. Your dispute of my points requires assumptions well outside the reasonable and your dispute with Mal seems much more centered on attacking the character he posted than establishing a valid ECL.
If you post a reasoned position, I will be more than happy to consider it.
Last edited:
Jasperak
Adventurer
I have been following this discussion for quite sometime now, and the reason why I am posting now is that I started wondering, what if we broke down the elements of what prompted WOTC (or whomever) to give the Ogre ECL+8 or any other races for that matter their respective ECLs.
I was thinking, how many levels is being large worth, or even a bonus +10 to strength. We know they started with HD and then added to based upon abilities but what exactly is 4 0-level spells worth class level wise.
Instead of worrying about one ogre fares in one campaign, break down mathematically what a +10 strength is, or reach, or extra 10' movement, or flying.
Along those lines, some food for thought:
+10 strength ~ +10 fighter class levels (for BAB only)
flying ~ 3rd-level arcane spell (6th? level caster)
4 0-level arcane spells ~ 1st-level arcane spell caster
Troll regeneration ~ ring of regeneration? (90,000)
reach ~ spring attack? (cannot remember which feat it would be)
4d8, 8 skill points, 1 feat ~ crap (I think I would start with CR and add to that instead of HD)
Cannot think of any more (I am still at work), but I think it might be a start.
The whole reason would be that we could start comparing creatures to each other. While I would think Ogre would be okay at ECL+5, I think that ECL+6 would be satisfactory, although no frickin Troll is going to be ECL+11? in my world.
Coming up with a chart similar to the class creation engine that is floating around would go a long way towards finding a more playable answer. I have got a feeling that this ECL thing will never go away but maybe we could find some semblance of balance. And who knows, we may find that all of these ECLs in the article were picked with darts
BTW, based on a previous post, I will not be comparing the ogre fighter to a human fighter any more, but the ogre to a half-orc. Seems like we may get a slightly better analysis.
I was thinking, how many levels is being large worth, or even a bonus +10 to strength. We know they started with HD and then added to based upon abilities but what exactly is 4 0-level spells worth class level wise.
Instead of worrying about one ogre fares in one campaign, break down mathematically what a +10 strength is, or reach, or extra 10' movement, or flying.
Along those lines, some food for thought:
+10 strength ~ +10 fighter class levels (for BAB only)
flying ~ 3rd-level arcane spell (6th? level caster)
4 0-level arcane spells ~ 1st-level arcane spell caster
Troll regeneration ~ ring of regeneration? (90,000)
reach ~ spring attack? (cannot remember which feat it would be)
4d8, 8 skill points, 1 feat ~ crap (I think I would start with CR and add to that instead of HD)
Cannot think of any more (I am still at work), but I think it might be a start.
The whole reason would be that we could start comparing creatures to each other. While I would think Ogre would be okay at ECL+5, I think that ECL+6 would be satisfactory, although no frickin Troll is going to be ECL+11? in my world.
Coming up with a chart similar to the class creation engine that is floating around would go a long way towards finding a more playable answer. I have got a feeling that this ECL thing will never go away but maybe we could find some semblance of balance. And who knows, we may find that all of these ECLs in the article were picked with darts
BTW, based on a previous post, I will not be comparing the ogre fighter to a human fighter any more, but the ogre to a half-orc. Seems like we may get a slightly better analysis.
Jasperak said:
Minor correction: +10 Str is +5 to hit and damage. A fighter 5 levels higher would have the same attack bonus, but still do less damage per hit.
There is no way for a fighter to make up for this high a difference in attributes provided they both have access to the same magical resources. The same would go for other abilities. A race that gave +10 to Int or Cha would get five more bonus spells and ON AVERAGE be capable of understanding a 9th level spell. There just would not be any way to make up for that.
When the bonuses stay low (no bonus over +4, total bonus +2 or less) you might be able to compare it to a 32 or 45 point buy. When you start talking about +10 bonus to an attribute, there is no way any of the normal player character races should be able to keep up.
Axiomatic Unicorn
First Post
It is a nice idea, but I think I am agreeing with bret when I say I do not think it is feasible.
For instance having a +8 STR may be worth X and having a +8 CON may be worth Y, but having +8 to both would probably be worth more than X+Y.
In the end it would just be easier to estimate the best guess/ best tested ECL on a race by race basis.
For instance having a +8 STR may be worth X and having a +8 CON may be worth Y, but having +8 to both would probably be worth more than X+Y.
In the end it would just be easier to estimate the best guess/ best tested ECL on a race by race basis.
CRGreathouse
Community Supporter
Axiomatic Unicor is correct - it's dangerous to base a complex concept such as ECL off a formula alone. It needs playtesting!
Similar Threads
