Author Topic: LA vs Progressions. Buyoff?  (Read 5928 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

The_Mad_Linguist

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 8780
  • Simulated Thing
Re: LA vs Progressions. Buyoff?
« Reply #20 on: March 31, 2010, 03:36:53 PM »
It's explicitly stated

Quote
# Characters are not required to complete all the levels of a given template class in uninterrupted succession. For example, a character who takes a level of wereboar could then take a level of fighter and a level of rogue (or any other combination of other class levels) before taking another level of wereboar. A character must still take the first level of wereboar before taking the second, just as with a normal class.

Note that these are a different kind of class than those from SS
Quote
Unlike standard character classes (and the "monster classes" from Savage Species)
Linguist, Mad, Unique, none of these things am I
My custom class: The Priest of the Unseen Host
Planetouched Handbook
Want to improve your character?  Then die.

Brainpiercing

  • Hong Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 1475
  • Thread Killer
    • Email
Re: LA vs Progressions. Buyoff?
« Reply #21 on: March 31, 2010, 03:57:56 PM »
Except the web progressions, because they're approximately 354% more awesome than the savage species progressions.

Why do I think buyback with UA rules is clunky? The reason is the high LA that comes with a lot of progressions.

Look at it this way:
You want to play an Ogre Mage. So you get 12 or so levels, of which 5 are HD. Now you are ECL12, need to meet ECL 12 challenges, and you need another 21 class levels before you can buy off the first level of LA.
Or a Hill Giant, same game, 12 HD, 4LA, you need to be ECL 24 (another 12 class levels) before you can buy off the first LA.

So really, using the normal UA rules, what's the point?

LargePrime

  • Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 322
Re: LA vs Progressions. Buyoff?
« Reply #22 on: March 31, 2010, 04:47:55 PM »
Except the web progressions, because they're approximately 354% more awesome than the savage species progressions.

Why do I think buyback with UA rules is clunky? The reason is the high LA that comes with a lot of progressions.

Look at it this way:
You want to play an Ogre Mage. So you get 12 or so levels, of which 5 are HD. Now you are ECL12, need to meet ECL 12 challenges, and you need another 21 class levels before you can buy off the first level of LA.
Or a Hill Giant, same game, 12 HD, 4LA, you need to be ECL 24 (another 12 class levels) before you can buy off the first LA.

So really, using the normal UA rules, what's the point?
Man, You nailed that.  So your saying if the Buy off takes you into epic levels to start the WHOLE idea of LA buyoff for progressions is silly.

On an unrelated note

The_Mad_Linguist

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 8780
  • Simulated Thing
Re: LA vs Progressions. Buyoff?
« Reply #23 on: March 31, 2010, 04:50:37 PM »
No, he's saying that the LA buyoff rules are clunky because they can't handle simple cases that they really ought to.

I appreciate the effort of labeling yourself a strawman, though.  That was very helpful
Linguist, Mad, Unique, none of these things am I
My custom class: The Priest of the Unseen Host
Planetouched Handbook
Want to improve your character?  Then die.

LargePrime

  • Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 322
Re: LA vs Progressions. Buyoff?
« Reply #24 on: March 31, 2010, 05:59:07 PM »
No, he's saying that the LA buy off rules are clunky because they can't handle simple cases that they really ought to.
Actually the LA rules already handle the case described.

Havok4

  • Man in Gorilla Suit
  • *****
  • Posts: 2144
  • It can only be attributable to human error.
Re: LA vs Progressions. Buyoff?
« Reply #25 on: March 31, 2010, 07:12:12 PM »
No, he's saying that the LA buy off rules are clunky because they can't handle simple cases that they really ought to.
Actually the LA rules already handle the case described.
They mean that it should be usable in a non-epic game so a player would be more able to actually play odd races.

The_Mad_Linguist

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 8780
  • Simulated Thing
Re: LA vs Progressions. Buyoff?
« Reply #26 on: March 31, 2010, 07:55:58 PM »
No, he's saying that the LA buy off rules are clunky because they can't handle simple cases that they really ought to.
Actually the LA rules already handle the case described.

They do not fulfill their stated objective.
Linguist, Mad, Unique, none of these things am I
My custom class: The Priest of the Unseen Host
Planetouched Handbook
Want to improve your character?  Then die.

Brainpiercing

  • Hong Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 1475
  • Thread Killer
    • Email
Re: LA vs Progressions. Buyoff?
« Reply #27 on: March 31, 2010, 08:25:06 PM »
No, he's saying that the LA buy off rules are clunky because they can't handle simple cases that they really ought to.
Actually the LA rules already handle the case described.

They do not fulfill their stated objective.
Well, I don't know whether they WANT to make it possible to get rid of +7 LA, but even just +4, when you get it later in the game, for instance, when you become a lich (which SHOULD be a viable PC choice, IMHO), is really hard to get rid of.

What I've now started doing in my current table campaign is allowing partial gestalting on monster progressions, too. So at least you might be lucky enough to have, let's say, 16 monk or fighter or other Tier 5 class levels to go with that Hill Giant. Not great, but better than nothing. BUT it's really hard to put them in the Tier System...

Havok4

  • Man in Gorilla Suit
  • *****
  • Posts: 2144
  • It can only be attributable to human error.
Re: LA vs Progressions. Buyoff?
« Reply #28 on: March 31, 2010, 08:49:40 PM »
for instance, when you become a lich (which SHOULD be a viable PC choice, IMHO), is really hard to get rid of.

This is the primary reason walker in the waste is so good, assuming you use the interpretation that transformation classes do not cause any LA.

Brainpiercing

  • Hong Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 1475
  • Thread Killer
    • Email
Re: LA vs Progressions. Buyoff?
« Reply #29 on: April 01, 2010, 07:01:22 AM »
for instance, when you become a lich (which SHOULD be a viable PC choice, IMHO), is really hard to get rid of.

This is the primary reason walker in the waste is so good, assuming you use the interpretation that transformation classes do not cause any LA.
Yes, but that's not the point. One of the nice things in D&D is that there USUALLY is always another option. There just isn't one to get rid of LA, at the point when it becomes rather too much compared to what other people get.

Let me reiterate options I've considered or played for dealing with LA:

1) Buyback UA:
Pro: Makes +1 and +2 fairly easy to deal with, if taken at 1st level.
Con: Makes +1 basically a non-issue entirely. Basically with buyback, if you're not taking a +1 Race, you're doing something wrong. Makes higher LA disproportionately difficult to get rid of, even at higher levels.

2) For every level of LA you get a D4 HD, poor BAB, one good save, 2+Int skills
Pro: You get more HP, BAB and skills
Con: You'll never make a real level 20 build before epic. Those HD are poor, ignore Types, and are weird mechanic.

3) Fixed level buyback (every three or four levels)
Pro: You don't get the extreme escalation of higher LA.
Con: Maybe it gets a bit too easy? Up to +6 would be removable pre-epic, if you allow even retroactive buyback

4) Scrap it. Use one of the available monster character systems (which are all homebrew). Scrap monster progression classes, too.
Pro: Freakshow galore
Con: Tends to be rather high-powered, in spite of the fact that builds have few class levels. A ton of abilities CAN make really strong characters. Also, disfavours spellcasters with powerful races, OR makes spellcasting monsters that can advance their casting REALLY strong.

5)Give RHD for LA as per Type
Pro: Gives possibly quite good HD.
Con: VERY disparate RHDs make balancing difficult. Can be rather higher-powered. Can make some of the base classes look pretty bad in comparison. Lots of people don't like RHD. (Not me.)

6) Use partial Gestalt with the Tier System for Classes, putting LA or monster progression within the Tiers, possibly giving RHD for LA, too
Pro: Integrates seamless with the Tier system, and allows playing of monster progressions or level-adjusted races without too many problems.
Con: Lots of work and difficult and/or dubious decisions to be made. How can monster progressions be rated? If I DO give a HD every level, how does that influence the progression? AND if a progression is rated too highly, you won't be able to gestalt it at all, then what happens?

7) Use REAL gestalt, allowing a monster or monster progression on one side.
Pro: Um... fun
Con: Too much work for the DM even making challenges; Makes monstrous full-casters YET stronger.

Overall I like two approaches best:

4) in combination with 5), and 6)! 4+5 is rather more simple, many things can be hand-waved, or decided via rule of thumb. 6 is possibly a bit more balanced, but also a lot of work, and rather harder to hand-wave.