You assume there is a competition to begin with. It's not a competition at all. The game is about building a fulfilling narrative for your characters. The only one I am in competition with is myself, by challenging myself to the limits of my possibilities and trying to survive against all odds. Between characters, on a roleplay server where people band together to overcome their respective shortcomings, the difference is moot. I am quite happy not having the strongest min/maxed character around. Whatever someone else does, so long as it fosters good roleplay, is relatively of no consequence to me. Roleplay is its own reward.
Like it or not, there is a competition. Players compete with one another (or factions compete with one another) for wealth (gp), personal power (xp), and influence. If a character is not in conflict/competition with any person/faction/entity, then the narrative is a boring one. Being in competition with only one's self is counterproductive to telling a story. Imagine if a character spent all of their time on self improvement. Training, studying, whathaveyou. Sure, they're in "competition" with the person they used to be (IE their weaker self), but without an external source of conflict, then the story becomes monotonous, dull, tiresome, uninteresting, and any other word meaning boring.
For Example: Would you watch a show like Dragon Ball Z if Goku spent every episode doing pushups instead of fighting the villain? I think not. (Not that you'd watch Dragon Ball Z in the first place, but I think it's a reference that most people would understand).
Trying to survive against all odds is all well and good, but when your character falls behind the curve in
What he is supposed to be able to handle, then that isn't fun. Not for you, nor the party that has to literally carry you through every engagement because you're too underpowered to contribute. You can certainly claim to be having fun, but I don't believe it for a second. I'm here to play a game. If my "playtime" consists of me sitting in the back plinking away with a crossbow (and failing) without contributing anything to the party success, then I'm a dead weight at best and an xp leech at worst.
As for Roleplay being it's own reward, sure. Roleplay is important. If you want to take your LA +2 aasimar into the outskirts and RP all day, then more power to you. This discussion however, is about the sort of players who want to play the game beyond typing in a chatbox, and are having great difficulty doing so due to the difficulty of levelling up a level adjusted character (And their relative inability to contribute anything to a level appropriate encounter/dungeon/whathaveyou).
Ah! I alluded to it already above, but it is widely known already that I value roleplay over any form of mechanical advantage. It's not that I don't see it, I do, I just don't find that am impediment to my enjoyment of the game. I own my choices in character buildings, I know from the get go it's probably not the most effective of built, just as I knew what I was getting into when selecting an ECL race. "Caveat emptor" said the romans. The buyer assumes the risk that a product may fail to meet expectations or have defects. I mean here that whoever plays an ECL race knows what he's getting into. Warnings are plentiful about it. It is a challenge, not for everyone, but some of us do like it just like that. It is the balance we want. And its for the best too! What a boring game would D&D be if everything was perfectly balanced. Inbalances forces people to adapt and work together. It is desirable on a RP server. (*lets nuance here, I am not saying lets screw the current balance, a measure of balance is certainly required, it does not have to all be perfectly balanced)
I'm going to have to vehemently disagree with you. This is a multiplayer RPG. Balance should be a factor in all design decisions. Perfect balance may not be attainable, but using that as an excuse to not fix a frankly
glaring problem with the current ECL system is quite apathetic, to be polite. If you prefer RP over mechanical advantage, again, all the more power to you. Playing the chat simulator is fun for a lot of folk, and I quite enjoy it myself. But I'm also here to explore dragons, slay dungeons, and rescue the evil king from the princess in distress.
The major point here is that if you can't -contribute- mechanically to an encounter, then you're dead weight, an xp sponge, and likely not having as much fun as you could be.
Again, you only provide the 1 option where the human is the highest level. It might very well be the reverse, or they may be of the same level.
They very well could be, but the point I'm trying to make is that one is patently better than the other in every way. Choosing the most effective people to join your party is a must in order to survive some of the content on this server. Unless of course the "most effective" people are quite a bit higher level than you (meaning that you won't be getting much, if any xp, or you'll be taken somewhere where you're completely outclassed and cannot contribute). I don't know about you, but I don't have fun if I'm running a dungeon, and not being able to contribute to anything going on in there. At that point, why am I even there? I can't help. All I'm doing is being an XP/loot sponge.
And why would you really have to make a choice in this case where the obvious answer is of course bringing both and see the roleplay that would ensue. Characters are (usually) not in competition with each others, it only matters if said character can survive the destination. At the very least we can agree that both tieflings and aasimars can be great survivalists.
There are plenty of adventuring situations where you're in tight quarters without a lot of room to muck about. Keeping your party size at the right number is important to your success. Sometimes you want to keep the party size small to keep gold shares high for everyone. Sometimes you want to keep party size small so you gain the most xp you can. Ever go down into the catacombs with 16 people? Happened a couple of times during NCE. It was cramped, it was laggy, and I didn't have much fun with it at all. Sometimes you need to keep the party size manageable because of limited resources or (in many player's cases with EE) server/computer performance issues.
Thank you for confirming what I've been saying all along. I never said an ECL +2 char was as strong as a character 2 level higher. It is impossible with 3.5e rules.
Good. So you agree that an LA + 2 Character isn't a match for a LA +0 character of equal ECL. This is a problem that should be rectified
The "effective" of ECL never meant "as effective as a char 2 level higher", it would be a gross mistake to think so.
You're.... kidding right? That is literally it's intended purpose. Effective Character Level, by definition, is the EFFECTIVE power level of your character. Therefore, two characters who are ECL 8 should be similar in terms of power. Or EFFECTIVENESS, if you prefer. Here. I'll include a link to a blog post by one of the designers of 3.5, he sums up what ECL means pretty succintly:
http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/misc/ecl_vs_cr.htmlI'll save you the trouble of going through the whole thing. Here's two relevant snippets:
ECL (effective character level) measures how powerful a creature is if used as a PC. ECL = creature's HD + LA.
Example: A PC human Ftr6 is ECL 6 (6 HD + 0 LA). A PC drow Ftr6 is ECL8 (6 HD + 2 LA). A PC doppelganger Ftr6 is ECL 14 (4 race HD + 6 class HD + 4 LA).And:
An example is the drow elf. Drow have a CR adjustment of "class level +1" and a LA of +2. Thus, an NPC drow Ftr5 has a CR of 6. However, that drow Ftr5 as a PC is treated as a 7th-level character (5 class levels plus the LA adjustment of +2 = 7). This is because the drow's spell resistance and other magical abilities are more valuable if he gets to use them over and over again, which he will get to do as a PC because he's played in multiple sessions, instead of being killed after one fight if he were a "monster."
So don't confuse CR with LA (or ECL). LA tends to be higher than the CR adjustment for a creature because in the long run a PC with special abilities gets to use them more often than a monster with those same abilities.So. Game designer says that ECL is supposed to represent how effective a particular creature is. Can't get much clearer than that.
And that it is precisely why I was telling that the comparison had to be made at the same character level. A level 2 ECL, is not a level 4, he's still a level 2 BUT with more abilities.
This is false. A Level 2 character with a +2 LA is supposed to be ECL 4, meaning they should be about as effective as another ECL 4 creature (Such as a level 4 Human PC), they are not. This is not an argument of semantics. They are SUPPOSED to be on the same level (see the above blog entry by one of the 3.5 game designers). They are not. The discussion is about how to rectify this.
What I said was that the abilities I got at level 2 are worth the 2 levels I am sacrificing for them. HUGE difference. NO... I am not telling they are stronger than the abilities I'd lose at level 19 or 20, but they are worth it because they will serve me longer and more often during the characters existence. Balance is served.
Except that balance isn't served. If you're primarily an RP'er, then mechanical balance doesn't really mean much, because you're not playing the mechanical part of dnd. You're playing chatbox simulator 2018. I'm also an avid RP'er, but I'm advocating for the players who want to play an ECL race (and likely for fluff reasons, considering their overwhelming power is simply.... underwhelming), but also want to be able to dungeon with their friends (And by dungeon, I don't mean being an XP sponge because you can't contribute in a meaningful way, I mean crushing skulls and unleashing spells).
Right there though is the domain of perception, what seems acceptable and balanced to me need not be the same to you. There is no universal truth, the truths are multiple. One thing is certain, I side on the side believing the balance is proper as is.
And I respect your choice in that regard.