When is it ok to give Caster progression to Monster HD?

[Dominicius]

There are already some monsters out there who are supposed to have casting progression, like Ogre Mage for sorcerer and Mind Flayer for psion. How much would each give if we decided that their HD offers casting progression?

My idea is to tie it to the highest level spell that a monster can cast but I have yet to work out the exact numbers. In effect the monster may give up its natural casting abilities to gain progression in a caster class that fits it.

[Archmage]

Because HD aren't actually closely tied to level or CR depending on type, you're going to wind up with some really weird monsters--some will be way overpowered, others way underpowered.

IIRC, a mind flayer has 8 HD; replacing its current spell-likes with 8th level psion (telepath) manifestation abilities is going to be a terrible trade, for example.

[RobbyPants]

Are you talking about using these monsters for PCs, or just using the progression to beef up a monster encounter for higher level?

[Dominicius]

Yea I should have specified.

I'm trying to use Tome monster for PCs system and I wondered how this would work with it. Getting an understanding on how it works with normal monsters would be a welcomed extra.

[Utterfail]

Looking at the Mind Flayer, if one were to give it a wizard casting progression equal to its HD/CR (the same here) the only spell ('power') you lose out on is Plane shift. I'd say treating the 'thid racial HD as wizard levels is ok.

In general if you want something to have a caster progression I'd say that it should either be at full HD/CR, or if that would be too crazy it could be set at HD/CR - 2 like a cohort. Less than that and its hardly worth having and should just be a bundle of Spell-Likes.

[Archmage]

You're going to have to make a judgment call for each monster.

Dark naga and spirit naga are both 9 HD aberrations that cast spells as a 7th level sorc. Guardian nagas are 11 HD and cast as 9th level sorcs. But a water naga is a 7 HD creature that casts as a 7th level sorc. A nymph is a 6 HD fey that inexplicably casts spells as a 7th level druid, plus a free stunning gaze attack (and dimension door 1/day, but that's not especially exciting). A planetar is only a 14 HD outsider, but it casts spells as a 17th level cleric, plus all the other random crap because outsiders are [Awesome].

In general, getting full casting is so good that getting full casting plus a bunch of monster abilities and stat adjustments is probably going to be overpowered unless everyone in the party is doing it, at which point you can go nuts knowing that your characters are much stronger than would be expected if you were using standard races.

The ECL system is an awful failure, though, and trying to multi-class "monster levels" with caster levels is going to result in crappy level-inappropriate spellcasting. In general, because of how bad it is to lose caster levels, this sort of thing works better for non-casters.

What's the intended power level/starting level for the game?

[Utterfail]

I'd say it more important to look at CR than HD for this, since the Tome Monster-as-PC rules posit that you should make them equal. So, the Dark Naga is a CR 7 (and thus, HD 7 as a PC) creature with 7th level casting, Spirit Naga are CR 9 with 7th level casting (cohort casting, wooo), Water Naga are CR 7 with 7th level casting, and Nymphs are CR 7 with 7th level casting.

Guardian Naga and Planetar require a little bit of fudging, but not much. Guardian Naga are CR 10 with 9th level casting. You could drop them down to cohort casting or.... hell, just leave it at CR - 1, it within the appropriate range. Planetar are CR 16 and cast at 17th level, drop the casting down by a level and you're golden. Heck, if you give the Planetar the "Awesome" CR modifier of +1 for PC's they fit perfectly.

Wizards, despite all the other things they did wrong, seem to have usually kept monster casting at something close to their CR, if not HD or ECL.

[Archmage]

I realize that in general Tome games are somewhat higher-powered than the standard (especially since most DMs are going to flat-out deny things like wish "abuse"), but even so, I think a planetar is a bit much for an 18th level PC. Even if they "only" get 16th level cleric casting, you've still got other spell-likes (though most of them aren't actually that impressive), large size, and SR 30 on top of stat mods that are going to convert to roughly +8-10 across the board, and that's before any equipment or wish shenanigans.

The other resistances and regen are basically flavor at that level...hell, "being a planetar" is basically flavor at that level. The game snapped in half 8-9 levels ago. If that's the PC power balance point for your game, go nuts. Level = CR as a guide is somewhat reasonable, as long as you look at monsters individually and decide whether their particular abilities will render the game unplayable.

As far as the nymph, an at-will save-or-lose coupled with a paladin-like CHA-to-saves...actually, you know what? I never noticed before that a nymph kind of shoots itself in the foot versus humanoids, assuming its gaze attack follows standard rules and doesn't work on creatures who are blind.

[Utterfail]

No, I'd say the Planetar is pretty par for the course at level 18. Just looking at some basic tome stuff, if you make a Tiefling Knight 8/Conduit 10 you end up with more than SR 30, feats that make you big-hueg, rad spell likes, and then you can seriously pick up level 16 casting by grabbing any leadership feat.

And thats just me doing a Control-F for "spell resistance" and using the first tome class that granted it and then stacking on more levels.

[Kaelik]

and then you can seriously pick up level 16 casting by grabbing any leadership feat.

And then the Planetar can just pick up a Leadership feat, and then a second Leadership feat, and a Third. And then he can cast at level 16 four times!

But since it's actually a (Character ECL) 17 Planetar not a CR 18 one that casts at level 17, your cohort also can't cast as well.

Can we please stop using Leadership as the balance for everything?

I have never heard anyone say "Fuck Conduit, that level 10 ability is shit, you are casting less than a Cohort." Because sometimes, every once in while, people realize that Leadership is not a good place to balance things. But the rest of the time, you guys are fucking pissing me off.

[Archmage]

Yeah, I also find that Leadership is a poor balance point. Double your actions per round, albeit two levels behind your main PC?

Of the PHB feats (and maybe of nearly any published feat), Leadership is bar none the most powerful if you're granted full control of your cohort and their build. If the DM builds and controls the cohort, the feat is way less useful.

Let's put it this way--assuming full cohort control, if you had to choose between Natural Spell and Leadership, and you were barred the other forever, which one would you choose? (Thought so.)

I will concede without hesitation the bit about getting size and SR from Tome feats/classes that I'm not as familiar with as I'd like since I've never played an actual game including them. There's no argument to be made about those perks.

[Utterfail]

That Conduit level 10 ability... pretty much is shit. It's interesting but its not really going to make you more powerful. You'll be better off using your sphere SLA's till your run out of the good ones. The only thing it really lets you do is take caster PRC's. Yay? I'd rather finangle some way to get more spheres like true fiend.

And leadership is a fine balance point. Why? Because its available to the players. At the price of one feat you can get access to anything that only requires a CR of Your Level - 2. And it doesn't suck up your actual actions since you have some cohort do it for you.

You could argue that leadership as a "you get a CR (Level)-2 creature of your choice that follows you around" is broken. But as long as leadership exists in the rules its a point to balance things on.

[Archmage]

There are two kinds of broken (or at least two):

1. The game ceases to function if you do this
2. This option is so good there's no reason not to do it, so it isn't really a choice

Leadership kinda falls into the second category. Is there any character anywhere who is not improved by Leadership? Is there any reason other than "the DM said no" to not take Leadership, aside from having an abysmal and unrealistically low charisma score?

[Kaelik]

That Conduit level 10 ability... pretty much is shit. It's interesting but its not really going to make you more powerful. You'll be better off using your sphere SLA's till your run out of the good ones. The only thing it really lets you do is take caster PRC's. Yay? I'd rather finangle some way to get more spheres like true fiend.

And leadership is a fine balance point. Why? Because its available to the players. At the price of one feat you can get access to anything that only requires a CR of Your Level - 2. And it doesn't suck up your actual actions since you have some cohort do it for you.

You could argue that leadership as a "you get a CR (Level)-2 creature of your choice that follows you around" is broken. But as long as leadership exists in the rules its a point to balance things on.

No, Leadership is an ability that is better than every single other ability. If it were an option to spend every single feat on Leadership, it would be the most powerful option, and the only reason people wouldn't do it is because leadership is stupid, and because running 12+ characters is annoying.

If you balance everything so that every ability has to be as good as leadership, you are a fucking retard and you deserve to die.

As a rule, when you have an ability, the answer to the question "Would I rather have this class feature or Leadership?" The answer should always be Leadership unless that ability is literally your primary stick and does not synergize with any other ability you have.

[IGTN]

Yeah. Leadership is provably broked.

One level N character = CR N monster = EL N encounter.
The EL system says that two Level N-2 characters = two CR N-2 monsters = EL N encounter.

In other words, two cohorts is supposed to double your strength and basically make you another character on your own.

Therefore, cohorts are too good at any price other than a level adjustment.

I am dead serious here. A cohort should cost you a +2 level adjustment, not a feat. You don't get followers with it, either, just the cohort. The EL system tells me this is balanced.

Alternately, cohorts should be even less powerful (three levels behind, maybe), and cost more than just a feat. There should be a benefit to sending your cohort off to do something else.

[Dominicius]

Hrm... kinda what I expected but I'm ok with making individual adjustments.

Still, what is the general guidelines I should follow?
-Lose all spell like abilities?
-Progression is never greater than HD-2?
-Something else?

[Utterfail]

Alright, I'm convinced that Leadership is not a suitable metric to measure other parts of the system by, but I still think that the Planetar is a fine level 17 character and that sometimes full casting is fine, especially when the creature actually gets real casting instead of a hodge-podge of SLAs. I'll try to do a better comparison of a planetar and a level 17 tome character by trying to emulate a planetar closely with just 17 class levels and no equipment.

Planetar key features:
[*]Large
[*]90' fly speed
[*]17th level cleric casting
[*]+23 to hit in melee
[*]AC 32
[*]17th level cleric casting
[*]Spell Resistance 30
[*]Regen 10
[*]Resistances (lots) 10

So, lets make a Aasimar Cleric 7/Celestial Beacon 10 who focuses a bit on melee. Note: Since Planetar aren't proficient with any armors or shields, I'm reserving the right to use a set of nonmagical armor and a shield to emulate something from the planetar list. This means we have 18 levels, 6 feats, a shield, and a set of armor to emulate all those abilities.

[*]Large - Huge, actually.
[*]90' fly speed - Sun Plate
[*]17th level cleric casting - Well, yeah
[*]+23 to hit in melee - +27 = 15 BAB + 10 str (start of 14 + 16 from size increases + 2 combat school)
[*]AC 32 - 24 = 10 + 9 (armor) + 1 (dex) + 5 (shield) + 2 (dodge) - 3 (size)
[*]Spell Resistance 30 - Mage slayer only gets you 22
[*]Regen 10
[*]Resistances (lots) 10 - You get immunity to fire and cold, the common types. No resistance to others. Probably about equal.

Feats used:
Large Size
Huge Size
Combat School
Elusive Target
Mage Slayer

Armor: Sun Plate
Shield: Ice Aegis

So, a 17th level Aasimar cleric with one prc and some mundane equipment can surpass the planetar in melee, be a bit worse on defense, and cast just as well.

I'd say they're pretty equal and reassert that the Planetar is fine as is for a level 17 character.

[hogarth]

There are two kinds of broken (or at least two):

1. The game ceases to function if you do this
2. This option is so good there's no reason not to do it, so it isn't really a choice

Leadership kinda falls into the second category. Is there any character anywhere who is not improved by Leadership? Is there any reason other than "the DM said no" to not take Leadership, aside from having an abysmal and unrealistically low charisma score?

It depends on how NPCs work in your game.

If you would never, ever have NPCs working with you and the Leadership feat is the only exception, then Leadership is too powerful for one feat.

If you regularly have NPCs working with you and the Leadership feat only means that one of the NPCs likes you best, then Leadership is just flavour.

[Kaelik]

Utterfail, I agree that in general a Planetar is an acceptable level 17 character for PCs It's only Leadership balance that is my problem, and I generally go off on that.

I don't know celestial beacon, but whatever.

However, you should be aware that the official way for monsters to become PCs in Tome games is to give them +1 CR and then give them the stat array generation of the PCs.

So you can expect a lot better stats and ABs and DCs and saves. But in general, at level 17, it's okay.

[CatharzGodfoot]

The deal with cohorts is that when you build them as 'NPCs' powerful enough to tag along with the party, you make them too powerful relative to just about every other options with the same cost. When you make them weak enough to be balanced with options of the same cost, they can't safely tag along with the party and will pretty much just fucking die every encounter.

That said, they're only unbalanced with almost every other option of the same cost. The planar buddy/bitch line of spells does pretty much the same thing at less cost. And chain binding is good for more than just the wish economy.

There are also a number of reasons why adding the abilities of a cohort directly to a PC is not balanced with having a cohort. Both in terms of stacking and action cost.

In terms of influence on the story, having a cohort should give you more time in the spotlight, but for the fact that cohorts are often pushed into the corners. When cohorts are played traditionally (i.e. by the DM), you're actually loosing screen time to your sidekick.

[Kaelik]

That said, they're only unbalanced with almost every other option of the same cost. The planar buddy/bitch line of spells does pretty much the same thing at less cost. And chain binding is good for more than just the wish economy.

Yes, but they don't even do it at all till level 11, so I don't give a fuck like 70% of the time.

There are also a number of reasons why adding the abilities of a cohort directly to a PC is not balanced with having a cohort. Both in terms of stacking and action cost.

Yeah, because buffs it's actually better, because you only have to buff one character, and they take no items away from you.

But attacks, they aren't as good because you only get one attack. That's why cohort Cleric casting (or wizard) just being slapped onto someone who normally attacks with a sword is bullshit. But giving someone, anyone, a sphere, is just fine, because outside of "this sphere gives you infinte minions" all any sphere does is give you a shit ton of attack SLAs.

[kjdavies]

Yeah. Leadership is provably broked.

One level N character = CR N monster = EL N encounter.
The EL system says that two Level N-2 characters = two CR N-2 monsters = EL N encounter.

In other words, two cohorts is supposed to double your strength and basically make you another character on your own.

Therefore, cohorts are too good at any price other than a level adjustment.

I am dead serious here. A cohort should cost you a +2 level adjustment, not a feat. You don't get followers with it, either, just the cohort. The EL system tells me this is balanced.

Alternately, cohorts should be even less powerful (three levels behind, maybe), and cost more than just a feat. There should be a benefit to sending your cohort off to do something else.

Pretending that EL math applies to PCs, a +1 LA for a cohort would be more in line with the math.

CR n + CR n = CR n+2
CR n + CR n-2 = CR n+1

So, if a ninth-level character had a seventh-level cohort, EL math says together they'd be EL 10. To keep things in line, you could argue that the guy with Leadership should have a +1 LA and play with tenth-level party members.

Keith

[Cynic]

how does leadership stack against items in a way?

say if we ban cohorts taking leadership (just for not having to run 12+ characters) and say that their leadership takes on the quality of htem just having another magic item on them. I'm assuming pre-wish.

it's a rather rough idea and I doubt it would work but just throwing it out to see what the reaction would be.