Yes, this again

[indio]

Advertise, get someone to writwe Underdark-specific quests. I cant help with UD stuff...it's another world to me. I've formed the basis for creating a quest system where you plug data in, make templates, and there's a quest. No scripting. Cipher is currently ALFA-tising it, and making it work the way it ought to work.

The theoretical loops being spun in this thread have me questioning whether or not anything will get done. It appears, for all intents and purposes, to be merely an academic exercise. If you care enough to post lengthy threads about it, bend the effort toward creating 10 quests instead.

Create the content and the problem is solved....give your players a path to Lv2 without needing to rely on killing. It's a guaranteed method, it's unassailably fair, and it avoids any need to try and reach a compromise on an issue which is so unwieldy, fractured and polarised.

[AlmightyTDawg]

Still, that's not going to convince me or debunk the fact that yeah, a level X-3 svirfneblin, a level X-2 drow or a level X-1 duergar is about as powerful than a level X star elf, human, gnome considered over the average of all situations and X-es.
Your take seems they aren't, influenced heavily by looking at level 1 only. In fact, I think a level 19 duergar fighter is more powerful than a level 20 fighter - tough luck, a level 20 wizard is more powerful than a level 20 fighter too.

Outside of SR bonuses versus casters, or the dodge bonus of a svirf, I would happily line up in CvC against you all day long with an X level human fighter against an X-2 level drow fighter. I invite you to go test it and prove it to yourself - every major statistical measure, except for stats (DEX, INT, and CHA), cut in the human's favor. and the stat boosts don't overcome the BAB and HP and extra feat. I've proved it to myself at least two times at the table TPKing the party giving them a "(effective) level appropriate" challenge. Sure, it's more pronounced at lower levels, and more subtle at higher levels. but it is always the same thing.

But here's the rub - ALFA is a lower-level environment. Our center-of-mass is around the areas where it's a more pronounced disparity. As for the level 1 LA-fighter > human fighter concept, I think if you work it out it's almost a wash - far more heavily influenced by roll randomness than it is by the stats. In fact, outside of the svirf's dodge bonus, most LA-race "benefits" are generally inapplicable until around the CR 3 - 6 range (serious spellcasting threats, elemental damage, poison/phantasms, etc.). Again, svirfs are always the exception.

However, what I debunked was that "free XP" meant anything - that's just a way of unifying two potentially distinct systems. What I said the tradeoff was is that LA-races get innate gear an abilities for slower advancement and a level cap. Whether you want to equate the advancement with levels is the philosophical choice, and I thoroughly recommend that we drop it. But getting that XP in the Obsidian system doesn't mean anything (reference the quasi-half-orc LA+3 race example); it's the abilities that are significant. It isn't that drow get "levels" over normal characters - it's that they get "abilities."

I don't know when we turned back to the straight Obsidian system that necessitated this thread, but I think it's daft. It's based on unnecessary and inappropriate adherence to what was always a handwaving system to begin with. The Obsidian "compromise" was part of a structured system - you can come up with any stupid system you want if you've got firm playtesting support over every minutely scripted XP gain and combat.

The problem I have with the entire line of argumentation being made here is that it's inconsistent. One has to argue that because the snapshot of lvl1 LA versus lvl1 normal ends up in the LA's favor, that justifies a system that offsets them. But when the reverse is noted - that the offset creates a snapshot that's unfair, then you want to look at the full spectrum over all levels.

Quite frankly, when you do that, our starting system is completely irrelevant. No matter which one we choose, a total difference of a couple thousand XP against 180k, integrated over all the levels, it's going to come out so close to even as to not really matter. So what's really important in choosing a starting system is precisely the question of the power curve over CL 1 - 8. And then further, given the way ALFA works, the power curve over CL 1 - 4, is even more important, and given low-level survivability questions, really it's the power curve in the first 10000xp.

And it's there in ALFA's slow-leveling and quasi-party environment, the canon system, the Obsidian system, and the Savage Species system, are all completely daft. The lesser races option is fine mathematically and really only offends canon sensibilities. However, given the tone and RP focus of this crew, I think that's a non-starter as well.

[AlmightyTDawg]

Create the content and the problem is solved....give your players a path to Lv2 without needing to rely on killing. It's a guaranteed method, it's unassailably fair, and it avoids any need to try and reach a compromise on an issue which is so unwieldy, fractured and polarised.

The problem with that Indio, is that until we pick a path here, the orders of magnitude are too large. Are we really going to create 3 - 8k XP worth of static content? How do you safely juxtapose normal/non-normal?

The reason why this is an academic exercise is because I think what's being proposed is based on awful premises. You can't stick to just book information sometimes - you've got to think about what supports it. For example, in a party of CL 5 drow, if you decide to throw a CR 10 spellcaster at them, and wonder why they breeze through it (or think they're gods for defeating something with a CR so much higher), you don't get it. The CR measure is an estimate alone, and situationally a given challenge will out- or under-perform a certain group. The CR system works on the "balanced party " concept - an all-SR party versus a mob whose challenge is exclusively in spells is a clear underperform.

To make indio cry a little more inside, I think Savage Species offers an interesting thought experiment. For those not in the know, what Savage Species does is makes LA-races into little mini-PrCs - you can take one level of "duergar" or up to two levels of "drow" - and when you've done so, voila you have the full canon kit. Until that point, you basically have a lesser race "normal" variant.

So here's the experiment. Let a bunch of minmaxers start making character builds with these rules. Find, as a statistical matter, when they take the drow levels, and the svirf levels, and so on. There's your balance point.

I guarantee you it will not be at starting level.

[Inaubryn]

Well, there have been many good arguments made and I think we have all agreed on one point. We don't want to handicap would-be LA players and/or current LA race players by subjecting them to the pitfalls of an extended level 1 situation.

That being said, why don't we do this. The OAS 2 is up and running, it appears the Savage Frontier will be up to beta2 soonish. It'll most likely take me a month or two of straight building to get the area of the UD we've conceived into the 1st or 2nd beta stage (small area).

Why don't we begin playtesting the systems? That would be the Obsidian system (default), the system I've proposed (a half and half)... uh, can't really test out the Lesser Races deal. That most likely won't fly anyway, but shouldn't be discounted altogether. And, we won't be able to test out the quest system effectively or will we? Indio? I don't know how you guys have set up your quests and if we can do them just for test sake. Kinda help TSF by beta testing at the same time testing what works best for this whole ECL thing.

These seem to be the most discussed systems. Even though, I think what I proposed is a fair compromise, allowing an xp boost up front with slower progression over the PC life, I'm one for trying to see what works better in actual test.

Only thing on testing my proposal is, we won't be able to implement the slowed progression over time automatically, so we'll have to do this manually. AlmighT, you wanna come up with exact numbers? These numbers should in effect, slow leveling enough so that a non-ECL PC will eventually catch and pass an ECL PC, but not enough so that we wind up with the same issue we're trying to avoid (overextended level oneness:) )

I think that's all of the feasible systems, right? Somebody let me know if I missed somethin'.

[indio]

Well, advice is always only ever there to take or leave. The onus should be on the module designer for this argument, not on the technical team, which is where it will end up. Just make the quests, take matters into your own hands, and stop overthinking the problem.

Good luck.

[Thangorn]

Inaub.. I am quite conversant with the canon of(and a big fan of) the Underdark, particularly drow, and should be able to assist you with your building of static quests if you wish.

Best way to do it would be you say "Thangs. I need a quest that does X." Then I will tell you what you need to do with the quest system and code some of the specifics, you can write your own convos though.. I dont have time for that..

if you want to couple this with what we discussed several months ago regarding building underdark infrastructure into the Moonsea region, that would be my preferred course. I'm pro-player choice I'm happy to do whatever is in my power to support underdark races through the early levs.

I must say I'm not a fan of your proposal as stated in this thread though. I'd prefer to make more static content like say simulated Melee-Magthere/Aranach-Tilith/Sorcere type training statics and DMed "tests".

[Inaubryn]

Thanks, Thangs. I'm looking to either locate our little corner of the underdark beneath the Savage Frontier or the Moonsea. I'm still gonna do Sunset House for ya. Might even do that before I start on the UD stuff.

And, if we were building a strictly drow, duergar, svirf, or other race specific server, I could see some merit in the academies route. It was attempted on NU at one point. Issue with that is, especially w/ drow, their training is no holds-barred. So, the survivabilty at a super lengthy first level, still rears its, MotoX-like slaughtering of PCs, head. I'm not real sure that sentence structure made sense. Anyway. As these PCs would be hittin' patrols in the UD... well, they wouldn't last long at level 1. It's precarious being level 1 for 1000xp, let alone 2000, 5000, or 9000, more. As I said... if you've played a PC in ALFA, think of how long it took you to get to level 4, then 5... imagine being level 1 that entire time. That's what I'm tryin' to remedy w/ the proposal. I honestly don't care how it's done, but we need to alleviate what will surely be a bastion of frustration for new and old players alike.

But, I'll most certainly take you up on the whole quest thing. I can do some minor scripting, and I know there's several quest wizards/templates out there to use as well. But, we can certainly use the hand if you're willin' to lend it.

[Rusty]

Every attempt to ameliorate the LA penalty felt at first level, either by restructuring its application or its cause, has been met with implacable opposition from parts of the LA-playing community-within-a-community in ALFA. The consequences of this are that we will almost inevitably replicate (if not actually exaggerate) the frustrations felt by many who tried to play and DM LA-race PCs in NWN1 ALFA - foremost of which is the low HD hurdle. This will be the cause of frustration amonst all players and DMs although, of course, it will have the greatest impact on those new to ALFA. Those who do not know DMs, many of their fellow players, or 'the system' in general, will find the low HD hurdle even higher - while the very same community-within-a-community whose stance guarantees its existence will find it, proportionately, of the slightest significance.

Concerning 'server design', I can assure you that any server offering anything in the region of 6,000 XP in repeatable no-risk statics is never going to go Live in ALFA, and DMs offering similar twinkage to low-level PCs will find their tenure abruptly curtailed. The appropriate response to a deliberate XP hurdle is not constructing servers or DMing in such a manner that it is sidestepped.

[indio]

6,000 XP in repeatable no-risk statics

*ahem*

I think you'll find that this is a misconstruing of any arument I've made. I believe I went as far as to mention ALFA Standards in an earlier post, and would appreciate it if any commentary on my assertion fully accommodated such a reference.

Sidestepping? With any luck that is the last time you represent my own work, and the work I recommend to others in the construction of a quest matrix, in such a frivolous manner.

[Rusty]

Don't be absurd indio: it's not becoming. Quite clearly, the point is that quest system should be developed with regard to the universal XP system, and not to any particular LA-related implementation.

[indio]

Elaborate for my feeble mind then, please?

Edit:

Quite clearly, the point is that quest system should be developed with regard to the universal XP system, and not to any particular LA-related implementation.

Ok. We're talking a different language on this one.

[Rusty]

By way of example, if Server A has a series of gloriously well-thought out linked, incremental static quests, dotted around the server introducing players to various areas and factions, as well as the main over-arching campaign, and through the course of these statics, PC A (non LA) is able to gain 1,000 XP (needed 1,000 XP to get 2 HD), that in no way reduces the relative low HD hurdle faced by PC B (LA) who also gains 1,000 XP (needs >1,000 XP to get 2 HD). The LA race PC still suffers a significantly longer period at 1 HD.

[Spider Jones]

The low-HD is the trade off, it's what keeps your standard races appealing. If you don't want swarms of genasi and svirfs running about ALFA, make it cost somethin' to play one.

[psycho_leo]

The low-HD is the trade off, it's what keeps your standard races appealing. If you don't want swarms of genasi and svirfs running about ALFA, make it cost somethin' to play one.

Although I very much agree with this assertion, to make a player earn 6000 XP to have more than 1HD is quite absurd if you consider the high risk environment we have. The obsidian system works like a charm for the OC, but somehow we forget that the in the OC we have: henchies willing to die to save your PC, no such thing as permadeath, big lumps of XP that make you get from lvl 1 to lvl 2 in something like 15 minutesa and endless magic-gear-dropping spawns.

That said, I so far have no intention whatsoever of playing a UD race, but in respect of those interested, I have to say the obsidian system simply doesn't work for us.

[Mayhem]

If you were running a long term ALFA game with a Sviriv, a drow, a human and a dwarf, but wanted to be sure that the playing field was equal, that everything was fair, what would you do in ideal circumstances, if it was purely your decision?

I would disallow the svirf, OR drop the dodge bonus to +1 v. everyone (and allow the small size +1 as well), slightly nerf the nondetection ability (advance at 1/2 level), and call them LA+2. From that point, I would advance on the "status quo" plan, avoiding letting the drow and svirf's SR be too much of an advantage at the lower levels (I'd say it equalizes around CL8).

In otherwords, you'd nerf everyone to human level - since avoiding situations where special abilities are useful is just another way of nerfing those abilities...

Sounds like a vote for the "Lesser Races" method.