Determining Level Lag

[77IM]

(a bunch of stuff that is all too true)

I agree that monster levels and monster traits should be handled separately, each with their own level lag value. Although the current T20 monster system isn't set up to support this well, it could be done.

Basically, monster traits would produce a straight-up level adustment, while monster levels would be purchased at a discount (like maybe each humanoid level counts as half a regular level). This is kind of what other folks have suggested earlier in the thread. But to incorporate Ulorian's suggestion, don't force PCs to take all, or any, of the monster levels. So you might be able to play a 1st-level Ogre Warrior as the equivalent of a 3rd-level character because he has none of the Giant levels.

It seems that nobody ever wants to take monster levels. They are always getting forced on players. One could claim this was for balance reasons, but a lot of the time I think it's simply because "well, that's just how many levels the monster has, so you have to take them."

-- 77IM

[iwatt]

It seems that nobody ever wants to take monster levels. They are always getting forced on players. One could claim this was for balance reasons, but a lot of the time I think it's simply because "well, that's just how many levels the monster has, so you have to take them."

Thing is, in D&D the mosnter hit dice are required to balance powerful races. I think the same is true in Truue20. You can't just give racial traits without demanding PCs take the necesary monster levels, IMO.

I do agree that Monster Levels shouldn't count as equal to heroic roles, except for dragons and outsiders.

[Dumok]

Well the main reason I would use the Monster level rule is, In my mind, A first level group would be severely unbalanced if someone took a fourth Level Monster and played him With a first level class. If they started off with Monster levels FIRST, you get a better reason as to why an Ogre would be travelling with a party to begin with.
With all the stories available of Monster characters being raised by Humans, etc. it opens up some doors that would not be easily explained otherwise.

[77IM]

Thing is, in D&D the mosnter hit dice are required to balance powerful races. I think the same is true in Truue20. You can't just give racial traits without demanding PCs take the necesary monster levels, IMO.

I disagree -- I think you can just give racial traits without monster levels, if you impose level lag.

True20 doesn't have escalating hit points so the level lag won't decrease your character's survivability much. It may impact your non-Toughness saves somewhat, but hopefully your creature's traits (particularly higher ability scores) compensate for that.

-- 77IM

[Ulorian]

(a bunch of stuff that is all too true)

I agree that monster levels and monster traits should be handled separately, each with their own level lag value. Although the current T20 monster system isn't set up to support this well, it could be done.

Basically, monster traits would produce a straight-up level adustment, while monster levels would be purchased at a discount (like maybe each humanoid level counts as half a regular level). This is kind of what other folks have suggested earlier in the thread. But to incorporate Ulorian's suggestion, don't force PCs to take all, or any, of the monster levels. So you might be able to play a 1st-level Ogre Warrior as the equivalent of a 3rd-level character because he has none of the Giant levels.

It seems that nobody ever wants to take monster levels. They are always getting forced on players. One could claim this was for balance reasons, but a lot of the time I think it's simply because "well, that's just how many levels the monster has, so you have to take them."

-- 77IM

Testify! A nice, succinct overview of the point I was trying to get across.

[iwatt]

I disagree -- I think you can just give racial traits without monster levels, if you impose level lag.

I'm still not fully convinced. Perhaps if we can come up with a good pricing of traits and ability bonuses I would side fully with you (makes for acleaner approach in any case), but if we base the traits on the templates in the bestiary (half-fiend I'm looking at you) I'm afraid they won't be balanced without adding monster levels.

Take for example the Lycanthrope template. t always has been based on balancing Monster levels with level lag. Removing the animal levels ought to increase the level lag considerably, which shoudl give us an idea about the pricing for bonus traits and abilty adjustments.

[gauss]

Bumping because I'd really like to see this proceed. The issue of playing monsters is seriously the one thing holding me back from loving True20, as silly as that may sound.

[iwatt]

Well, there was talk of studying how to represent monster levels. Now that we have the Companion, I belive it's possible to price the monster classes and therefore come up with an accurate portrayal of their power.

The first difficulty comes from the fact that monsters don't get 1 feat/level, but instead get 1/3 levels. This would mean bonus points in the companion, since 1/level doesn't cost anyhting. For simplicities sake let us say that 1/3 levels is roughly equal to -0.5 pts.

Aberration:

Combat: 3/4 (3 pts)
Skills: 2+Int (0.5 pts)
Feat Access: any (1 pts)
Powers: Fast, Narrow (1 pt)
Feat Progerssion: 1/3 (-0.5 pts)
Total: 5/5 -------> an aberration level is roughly equal to 1 heroic role

Animal
Combat: 3/4 (3 pts)
Skills: 2+Int (0.5 pts)
Saves: 2 good, 1 normal (0.25)
Feat Access: any (0.5 pts)
Feat Progression: 1/3 (-0.5 pts)
Total: 3.75/5 -----> 4 animal levels are roughly equal to 3 heroic levels.


Now, this can be extended to the other monster types, but before I do this I think we have to come up with a pricing for the slower feat progression than my -0.5, whcih I basically pulled out of my ass. The more I think about it, this progression should take into account the bonus feats provided by the monster type. (i.e Nightvision for animals, etc...)

Feedback would be apreciated on this issue

[Dragonspawn]

Well, there was talk of studying how to represent monster levels. Now that we have the Companion, I belive it's possible to price the monster classes and therefore come up with an accurate portrayal of their power.

The first difficulty comes from the fact that monsters don't get 1 feat/level, but instead get 1/3 levels. This would mean bonus points in the companion, since 1/level doesn't cost anyhting. For simplicities sake let us say that 1/3 levels is roughly equal to -0.5 pts.

Aberration:

Combat: 3/4 (3 pts)
Skills: 2+Int (0.5 pts)
Feat Access: any (1 pts)
Powers: Fast, Narrow (1 pt)
Feat Progerssion: 1/3 (-0.5 pts)
Total: 5/5 -------> an aberration level is roughly equal to 1 heroic role

Animal
Combat: 3/4 (3 pts)
Skills: 2+Int (0.5 pts)
Saves: 2 good, 1 normal (0.25)
Feat Access: any (0.5 pts)
Feat Progression: 1/3 (-0.5 pts)
Total: 3.75/5 -----> 4 animal levels are roughly equal to 3 heroic levels.


Now, this can be extended to the other monster types, but before I do this I think we have to come up with a pricing for the slower feat progression than my -0.5, whcih I basically pulled out of my ass. The more I think about it, this progression should take into account the bonus feats provided by the monster type. (i.e Nightvision for animals, etc...)

Feedback would be apreciated on this issue

Remember that monsters have a slower feat progression than heroic characters.

[True20Chick]

Well, there was talk of studying how to represent monster levels. Now that we have the Companion, I belive it's possible to price the monster classes and therefore come up with an accurate portrayal of their power.

This is a great idea!

We'd need to come up with a cost for "all Good saves" for things like Outsiders, Dragons, and dire animals. Since two Good or all Medium saves is .25 points, I'd suggest .5 points or even 1 point for all Good saves.

There should also be a point cost to account for the multitule of bonus feats monsters get. For example, the Ogre, with its 4 bonus Toughness feats, or the Fiends, with their array of bonus supernatural powers. I'd suggest a cost of .25 per bonus feat.

[iwatt]

This is a great idea!

We'd need to come up with a cost for "all Good saves" for things like Outsiders, Dragons, and dire animals. Since two Good or all Medium saves is .25 points, I'd suggest .5 points or even 1 point for all Good saves.

You're right. i haven't even begun studying the point cost for all good saves. I think you're spot on with the 0.5 for all good, but making it cost 0.75 or 1 might be a good idea to keep it away from PC hands.

There should also be a point cost to account for the multitule of bonus feats monsters get. For example, the Ogre, with its 4 bonus Toughness feats, or the Fiends, with their array of bonus supernatural powers. I'd suggest a cost of .25 per bonus feat.

Here's were I think we should decide how we're going to handle mixed monsters (those with both Monster Levels and Level Lag).

I think you made a brilliant start with the level lag weighting of traits that started this whole thread. :D


I think we should handle things like this:

Factor determining Level Lag:
1) Ability modifers
2) Natural Armor
3) Bonus Feats
4) Size
5) Speed
6) Traits

Factor determing Monster Level equivalencies:
7) Combat
8) Skills
9) Powers
10) Feat access
11) Saves
12) Feat Progression

So:

Factors 1-5 were already handled brilliantly by True20Chick, although the actual values might have to be rejuggled to take into account that Combat/Save/Skill progressions no longer determine level lag.

factor 6: I think it was a consensus that traits must be priced independently, since some are vastly more powerful than others. I think we'll have to look at them and compara their power versus a feat (+0.25 according to True20Chick) and judge accordingly. But we can probably face that farther ahead.

Factors 7-10: These are already brilliantly handled by the companion.

Factor 11: Also handled by the Companion, and I think Erica's pricing for all good saves is spot on (+0.5) points. But I'm willing to continue arguing it, and I don't think it's set in stone.

Factor 12: As I mentioned, and Dragonspwan reiterated, Monsters don't have the same feat progression that the heroic roles, which obviously means that that feat progression should come as a discount when determing the monster equivalency levels.

So as not to clutter this post more, I'll bring up this feat progression in a follow up post.

[iwatt]

Feat Progressions:

So according to the companion:

3 feats + 1/Level (0 pt)
3 feats + 1.25/Level (0.25 pts)
3 feats + 1.5 /Level (0.5 pts)
3 feats + 2 /Level (1 pts)

Clearly, the feat progression cost is = X/Level - 1, and the fact that Roles start with 4 feats

Now, monster levels have a difference, in the sense that they don't start off with 3 feats at first level, but instead start off with only one. IMO, this should mean that having a mosnter feat progression should have an effect on level lag i.e -0.5 Level lag to bre precise. In many cases this will be balanced out by traits and bonus feats.

This of course would mean that if a PC wants to take monster levels, he'll gain a -0.5 one time benefit to level lag. If instead he decides to ignore the monster levels and only take heroic levels, he doesn't enjoy this level lag discount.

Therefore, we must now look at the simple progression for monsters. In This case X is equal to 0.33, which plugged in to our formula means that a monster feat progression should cost -0.33 pts. Now, since we want to work with 0.25 increments, I suggest making the feat progression cost -0.5 pts (Cause I'm an engineer and I'd reather err on the conservative).

So, what d you all think?

[iwatt]

Now the oger example, to let us see how it works out.

Ogre:

Humanoid (Giant):
Combat: 3/4 (3 pts)
Skills: 2+Int (0.5 pts)
Saves: 1 good, 2 normal (0)
Feat Access: Any one of Adept, Expert or Warrior (0 pts)
Feat Progression: 1/3 (-0.5 pts)
Total: 3/5 -----> 5 giant levels are roughly equal to 3 heroic levels.

An Ogre has 4 humanoid Levels, which is equal to 2.4 Role Levels. We’ll hold off from rounding this off until we include the Level lag.

For the Ogre:

Size: Large, +.5 level lag
Abilities: -2 net ability bonuses, -.25 level lag
Speed: 30 ft., +0 level lag
Bonus Feats: 4 bonus feats (+1 Level Lag)
Traits: Darkvision, +.25 level lag
Starting Feats: As per Humanoid (-0.5 Level Lag)
Total Level Lag: 1 level lag.

Adding everything together, we have that an ogre starts with a total character lag of 3.4. Now, here’s were we have to use some art. Ogre characters will tend to choose to advance as Warriors, were their bonus Con and Str are maximized and their Int and Cha penalties are minimized. In this case I would round up to 4.

So, an ogre would be an appropriate entry character for a Level 4 character. From then onwards, the Character must advance in a Heroic role.

So let’s have an acid test, and see how everybody feels about this. IMO, unless you’re running a full hack and slash fest (and why use True20 for that), I think it’s balanced enough, since the character will probably be very handicapped in other situations.

[gauss]

I don't have too much to add here but I wanted to speak for the lurkers. I am very appreciative of all the hard work folks have put into this and am following this closely. I cannot wait until we have something compiled that (with the companion) can be used in playtesting. As a "stress test" I might suggest something set in Planescape. In my experience (been in 2 campaigns, one 3.0 and one 3.5) overly cautious LA assignments meant that it was pretty unattractive or downright impossible to play some of the neater non-standard monsters, even if their abilities were not that useful or could be easily countered. As it stands now it looks like a starting level of between 5 and 10 could fit quite a few more concepts in that in standard d20.

[iwatt]

In my experience (been in 2 campaigns, one 3.0 and one 3.5) overly cautious LA assignments meant that it was pretty unattractive or downright impossible to play some of the neater non-standard monsters, even if their abilities were not that useful or could be easily countered. As it stands now it looks like a starting level of between 5 and 10 could fit quite a few more concepts in that in standard d20.

Exactly, as has been mentioned, divorcing creature resiliency (toughness) from skill (levels), allows for a much beter system than the wonky ECL system (giant levels count 1/1 one for ECL ). Now we just have to work out the trait costs.

BTW, it's important to remeber that this mechanci is been balanced on the fact that creatures have 6 ability points. Games with higher point distributions should take a careful look at the value assigned to ability modifiers.