Yes, this again

[AlmightyTDawg]

As it came up in the last general discussion thread, again I disagree with Alara and side with Mik on this. This is not purely a "beef with WotC" - it's that the assumptions by which WotC's system works are not applicable here. WotC's level adjustment system gives us the clever unification of LA-races to the simplified XP scheme (by point of comparison, everyone remember 2E where different classes had different XP progressions?). But it's got clear logical deficiencies applied to our environment (slow leveling, quasi-party).

Inny's solution is close enough to the status quo solution in terms of starting XP (current model: LA+1 starts with 1k, LA+2 with 3k, LA+3 with 6k) but adds in an ECL adjustment penalty that we weren't planning on. Actually, Inny goes back and adds in the penalty (CL/ECL) that we used to use to compensate for the "free XP" phenomenon. Under Inny's scheme, a drow (starting at 3k) would need 9000xp to hit level 2 and 8000xp to hit level 3 and 83333xp to hit level 4 and so on. Compare that under today's scheme where they need 3000xp to hit level 2, 4000xp to hit level 3, and so on.

Inny's created a double-penalty that would make LA-races impossible to play. The ECL ratio adjustment was what allowed an LA-race to start at 1xp, and then hit level 2 at 1000xp like every other normal. What he's done is kept the "Obsidian" system of "Level 4 human = Level 2 drow" and then added on the ratio penalty besides.

I think he may have been under the assumption that we were sticking with base Bioware - and I don't know how that impression got started. Even with the fallaciously-named "free XP" LA-races pay LA*1000 xp more for every level comparable to a normal race. While this may not be an appropriate balance at the table, this is a brutal handicap in ALFA's environment - so much so that I've looked for ways to level the field back again. However, given ALFA's general hostility to the LA-races, that's clearly not going to happen, so I think we stick with the status quo.

As to other issues, I really believe ALFA is best served making a philosophical choice. And that's to abolish the concept of "Effective Character Level" from all but the slower advancement scheme. The only extent to which Level-Adjustment hits is that the XP-to-level table is shifted by that many levels, and LA-races start at the XP for the "normal" level corresponding to that.

A 1st level drow is not a 3rd level character. A 1st level drow is a 1st level character with some clear perks. What DMs would need to keep in mind is that situationally these characters outperform their level (e.g., when drow face off against a hostile wizard), but by and large are as powerful as their class level (edit: Svirfs tend to break this both by the universal +4 dodge and the SR - but I've been saying dump svirfs or nerf them for years). Because ultimately, even ECL isn't appropriate to reflect these situational modifiers - a 3rd level drow fighter would perform like a 3rd level fighter against an ogre (really how useful is "darkness?"), and probably even more than a 5th level fighter against a wizard (because the SR probably extends the effective HP of the character +100%). So even calling them an effective 5th level is based on the idea that they don't perform as a 5th in any way, but kind of like a 3rd most of the time and say a 6th some of the time.

Everything in our thinking should adjust to this new phenomenon. They are characters treated at their character level for challenges, and we counterbalance slow advancement against these situational abilities. That's a pretty even tradeoff and one easy to grasp. Given that we know DMs will probably compensate in those limited instances where the situational abilities are useful (e.g., let a 3rd level drow fighter line up against a 6th or 7th level wizard instead of a 5th, etc.), I think that tradeoff is even more appropriate - then it's slow advancement measured against a self-adjusting benefit.

Aside from the philosophical angst I'm sure this has brought up, this creates two problems. First is wealth advancement - Mik proposed base it off XP, and I disagree - I think that would turn the penalty into "extra" wealth per level and bring LA-races further away from the model of treating them just as their character level. Unfortunately, the mathematical solution is too complex to be appropriate anywhere but the DM tool. I would instead suggest alternate "factors" (1, 2, 4, 8 instead of 1.25, 2.5, 5, and 10) and let DMs make judgment calls to adjust LA-races where they felt appropriate. Second is XP calculations - right now we're calculating based on "ECL" and that would need to be removed from the ACR.

I'm not going to say this is canon - it clearly isn't. But I believe it better reflects the challenges of an individual PC in our environment.

[AcadiusLost]

Just to clarify- the only place XP is being shifted by the LA in the ACR currently, is in combat XP. This is removable, but will likely only represent a small minority of PC's XP gain to 2nd level. RP XP (scripted or DM granted), Quest XP, XP from static quests- none of those are penalized at current.

[Veilan]

As it came up in the last general discussion thread, again I disagree with Alara and side with Mik on this. This is not purely a "beef with WotC" - it's that the assumptions by which WotC's system works are not applicable here. WotC's level adjustment system gives us the clever unification of LA-races to the simplified XP scheme (by point of comparison, everyone remember 2E where different classes had different XP progressions?). But it's got clear logical deficiencies applied to our environment (slow leveling, quasi-party).

So actually, you're agreeing with me here:

you're not content with how DnD deals with LA. [...]LA by the core game rules is clumsy around the first level or two, which is exacerbated in the kind of PW where you don't fast forward / skip the first level or two.

What you are avoiding is the fact that with WotC, LA races either need to be played in a campaign of the appropriate starting level (where, yes, everyone has those same xp), or some alternative published rule should be used. Or an exception granted, but single-character exceptions are the province of PnP, not a PW.

Inny's solution is close enough to the status quo solution in terms of starting XP (current model: LA+1 starts with 1k, LA+2 with 3k, LA+3 with 6k) but adds in an ECL adjustment penalty that we weren't planning on. Actually, Inny goes back and adds in the penalty (CL/ECL) that we used to use to compensate for the "free XP" phenomenon. Under Inny's scheme, a drow (starting at 3k) would need 9000xp to hit level 2 and 8000xp to hit level 3 and 83333xp to hit level 4 and so on. Compare that under today's scheme where they need 3000xp to hit level 2, 4000xp to hit level 3, and so on.

Inny's created a double-penalty that would make LA-races impossible to play. The ECL ratio adjustment was what allowed an LA-race to start at 1xp, and then hit level 2 at 1000xp like every other normal. What he's done is kept the "Obsidian" system of "Level 4 human = Level 2 drow" and then added on the ratio penalty besides.

A system similar to what Inny suggested (less time on level 1, but overall xp penalty, I think even an outright flat xp reduction was suggested as variation), but was mostly booed down from within the LA crowd as being to "unfair" on later levels. Such is the problem - whatever you do, at some other point it will come back around to bite you in the rearcheeks, because of the concessions that have to made for playing in a level 1 campaign.

1st level drow is not a 3rd level character.

And here you disagree with DnD. A Drow of x class levels is, under the scheme the game gives us, a character of x+2 levels. This works nicely over the length of development - imho, an 18 class level drow is more powerful than a level 20 human, but hey, yes, on level 1 maybe it's the other way around. Just like a level 20 wizard kicks a level 20 barbarian, but on level 1..., well, you get the idea. Snap-shot views are rather narrow.
I also already acknowledged that in a PW like ALFA level 1 is more of a bother than in PnP, and that I share Inny's concerns about player entry. I'm not entirely certain what the point is of going back to things where there is agreement about what are the facts.

(really how useful is "darkness?")

Just a tangent, but... it's a 2nd level spell, it lets you escape fights in those situations where your "situational modifiers" are not weighing in heavily, and in the "fighter vs. fighter" comparison so popular (because fighters are the most dependant on HP and AB, I guess... very situational view, of course) darkness means the difference of AB, HP etc. is mitigated on lower levels, and actually turned into an advantage on higher levels, where the 50% miss chance, extra attack bonus for being attacked by an "invisible" enemy and so on really make a dent. Drow, after all, have darkvision and take no penalties in magical darkness.




Anyway, on the last points, I agree that a philosophical choice would be preferable, even if we adhere to different one's. I'm by far not a slavic adherent to canon only solutions, but I do think that the LA scheme and its rules published in WotC material, playtested with quite some "real world" experience is the most solid base to work off - which does not mean we should not adjust for ALFA's specific situation if necessary - but neither should we throw the baby out with the tubwater.

and bring LA-races further away from the model of treating them just as their character level

I think WotC gives us a clear set of rules to adhere to if we wanted to treat LA races as "just their character level". It's, from my outside point of view, the best suited model for ALFA, but then again, you would only be "resistant to magic" by "hardiness vs. enchantment" instead of "spell resistance" - which, it is contented, would destroy the roleplay flavour.

Still, we wouldn't have to bother about xp advancements and wealth schemes, we would not have to bend backwards trying to figure out how "some perks" fit in to a levelling and wealth scheme, and there can be absolutely no confusion about characters being treated as their character level, challenge-wise for the DM and standards-wise for wealth, xp, advancement.

But I fully admit my preference there is because I'm personally lazy and tired of the discussions what is unfair where and when and the constant attacks towards some non-existant "drow haters". We have a scheme here that addresses all grievances aired by the proponents of those races, by simply taking away the need to treat them as having +x effective levels. It addresses Inny's problem of low level pain. It addresses your point of wanting to tie it to class levels. It addresses everyone else's point of unfair, preferential treatment starting above the campaign entry. It addresses the problem of trying to tie in level 2+ campaign characters into a level 1 campaign. It is canon. Considered coolly, the advantages of the lesser races system are rather substantive.

[AlmightyTDawg]

What you are avoiding is the fact that with WotC, LA races either need to be played in a campaign of the appropriate starting level (where, yes, everyone has those same xp), or some alternative published rule should be used. Or an exception granted, but single-character exceptions are the province of PnP, not a PW.

I'm not avoiding it at all. I'm also not agreeing with you that our system merely exacerbates the issues of the canon system. I say the rules are so clearly inapplicable that to continually cite to them demonstrates a lack of understanding of the system. Thus it's not a beef with WotC. Their system is great for the tabletop and I won't challenge them on their turf. But it might as well not exist as far as we're concerned.

And here you disagree with DnD. A Drow of x class levels is, under the scheme the game gives us, a character of x+2 levels. This works nicely over the length of development - imho, an 18 class level drow is more powerful than a level 20 human, but hey, yes, on level 1 maybe it's the other way around. Just like a level 20 wizard kicks a level 20 barbarian, but on level 1..., well, you get the idea. Snap-shot views are rather narrow.

I also already acknowledged that in a PW like ALFA level 1 is more of a bother than in PnP, and that I share Inny's concerns about player entry. I'm not entirely certain what the point is of going back to things where there is agreement about what are the facts.

I don't have to disagree with DnD - but I do note that the term is "effective" character level. But like I said, we're talking about apples and oranges. The ECL system in the tabletop game works fine for them, and even the savage species or lesser races variants. They don't work for us for various reasons.

I think WotC gives us a clear set of rules to adhere to if we wanted to treat LA races as "just their character level". It's, from my outside point of view, the best suited model for ALFA, but then again, you would only be "resistant to magic" by "hardiness vs. enchantment" instead of "spell resistance" - which, it is contented, would destroy the roleplay flavour.

That's a different (and legitimate) approach. It's one that isn't even really environment dependent - you're just nerfing abilities into relative equality. We could make that change, but we'd have to make it across the board - meaning drow mobs would not have those abilities as well. That's what I think people aren't quite willing to do - and I think there are some overall general canon understandings that drow resist magic better than dwarves (so now it's a +4 bonus, etc.) that we could either ignore or work around.

Still, we wouldn't have to bother about xp advancements and wealth schemes, we would not have to bend backwards trying to figure out how "some perks" fit in to a levelling and wealth scheme, and there can be absolutely no confusion about characters being treated as their character level, challenge-wise for the DM and standards-wise for wealth, xp, advancement.

It's not exactly bending over backwards - but you do have to realize what assumptions prop up the canon system. I have a real simple balance - perks for slower advancement. While that's weak at the table, where slower advancement means plus 1-3 weeks per level, that's significant. That wealth and xp and other things come into the mix are just in thinking things through - do it once and it's done.

But I fully admit my preference there is because I'm personally lazy and tired of the discussions what is unfair where and when and the constant attacks towards some non-existant "drow haters". We have a scheme here that addresses all grievances aired by the proponents of those races, by simply taking away the need to treat them as having +x effective levels. It addresses Inny's problem of low level pain. It addresses your point of wanting to tie it to class levels. It addresses everyone else's point of unfair, preferential treatment starting above the campaign entry. It addresses the problem of trying to tie in level 2+ campaign characters into a level 1 campaign. It is canon. Considered coolly, the advantages of the lesser races system are rather substantive.

What it is - is saying that overpowered races are a pain in the arse. And that's legitimate - we're all trying to handwave benefits with detriments and say they're close enough. A lesser race system solves the problem. And if people get over the canon issues, it does it rather neatly.

Here's one rub though - the sort of pushback on the planetouched vote. We should take care not to cut things off just because they're hard or we can't get unanimity. In that sense, I feel like the lesser races suggestion is a form of the lowest common denominator - no one can disagree too strongly about it so it must be okay.

We can do better - even if that's finding a middleground that no one loves, but that strikes a good balance.

[Mulu]

Well, from a balance perspective the lesser races option is clearly the best. But if the LA race players hate it, then it's a non-starter, and it should probably be dropped from the discussion. It would also require a freak-load of work.

[Mayhem]

Just out of interest:

Those that are saying that the ECL race bonuses are not actually worth the extra levels an equivalent non-LA character would have - what do you think they *are* worth?

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?

[indio]

Can I just observe at this juncture that the preference, overwhelmingly, is for theoretical debate over practical solutions. Someone create the content and this is a non issue.

[fluffmonster]

paralysis through analysis.

[AlmightyTDawg]

Those that are saying that the ECL race bonuses are not actually worth the extra levels an equivalent non-LA character would have - what do you think they *are* worth?

There's no proper XP analogue. There's no way to balance BAB, save, and skill bonuses, not to mention spell progression for some characters, with fixed unique abilities. Sometimes those abilities will be more useful, but the (campaign-dependent) large majority of the time, the others will be.

My argument is right now those abilities should purely be balanced with slower leveling (and attendant slower wealth advancement). They should also be balanced with a final level cap using ECL 20, but PCs should be able to progress on the wealth curve to CL 20 as though they were still gaining levels.

As a practical matter, I would not let a campaign cater to the SR bonuses of those races, or say the poison-immunity of a duergar. However, having challenges where periodically those immunities let the PC be the star of the session can be very nice from a "group management" perspective. Smart DMs give everyone their turn in the spotlight.

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).

[Mulu]

I'm surprised TDawg didn't say this, since I'm just borrowing it from him, but what the ECL races powers *are* worth and most equivalent to is a fairly expensive set of magic items. The easiest way to balance that, other than nerfing the abilities or banning the races, would be to give non-ECL and low-ECL races magic treasure equivalent to (though of course not the same as) the high ECL abilities. Then you could eliminate the xp penalty as it would no longer serve a purpose. All races would be LA+0, and have some nice stuff or abilities at level 1.

To put it bluntly, you could fake the ECL races quite easily with magic items that have the same powers. So, in a 1st level PW, the balance option is to not give them those powers at the onset (lesser races), or give everyone equivalent powers through appropriate items. Basically every non-ECL or low-ECL PC gets an inheritance to balance the playfield, sufficient to bring them to the level of the most powerful ECL race allowed. If you really wanted to be finicky about the fairness, you could do it using a 0 weight, plot, undroppable shard created through scripting at PC creation (sort of like a starting merchant with a menu of options) called "Family Traits" or whatever. Or you could just give them gold equivalent to be simple. *Any* other solutions, especially xp solutions, are going to be a shoehorned exercise in handwaving, and inherently unbalanced at first and perhaps later levels as well. Of course, inertia favors what we get out of the box.

And I would summarily ban smurfs without hesitation no matter what solution is used.

I also agree with Indio that sufficient content could make it moot, but then you get the "hey, in the UD PC's can gain 10k xp without hardly any risk through quests, and I have to fight orcs, rats and killer chickens!" *shrugs* ALFA also has a history of losing content over time. A systemic solution is permanent.

[Veilan]

Funnily enough, Brokenbone and I discussed considering LA racial abilities as wealth two days ago. It's a way to look at it, but it would certainly do away with our level 1 appropriate starting idea, since it would mean starting at a considerable amount of wealth. And some abilities scale. The best use of it that I can see is to consider how effective these abilities are.

[Inaubryn]

I think Indio has a a point. However, a lot of non-combat scenarios and quest would have to be scripted in, which takes the element of danger out of the quests. Unless, you have a significant amount of 1st level content, then it works. However, DMs are still gonna DM and will eventually get tired of throwin' level 1 baddies at the players all the time. Even still, that is at least a possible solution. And, yeah, Indio, we'd definitely appreciate you all sharing any of the quests that you'r doin'.

T-Dawg, sorry. I missed the math. Seeing as how I didn't set a real number on the DMFI/DM Wand xp awards reduction proposal, how does it raise the amount of xp needed to be gained to such astronomical amounts? And, let me be clear, it's not an idea I'm in love with, I merely introduced it as a means to keep ECL progression slower than non-ECL progression. Because, as long as that happens, there's no real balance issue. ECL races stay the relative levels behind non-ECL races and everybody can live with that I'm certain.

I don't think there's anybody here that wants to experience the frustration of trying to achieve level 2 by having to earn no less than 3000xp for LA+1 and 6000 and 10000xp for LAs +2/+3. And, I dn't there's anybody here that wants anybody else to experience that. My jobs as builder and HDM of a UD server will be to ensure players are thoroughly challenged while having fun. But, if all of the players are continuously dying because of lack of progression over a given time, then the former and latter part of my job become disparagingly difficult.

Also, Jayde's idea of a way to lessen death, has some merit.

Alara, and I spoke on Ventrilo the other night and within about 10 minutes he completely understood where I was going with this and what I was trying to accomplish. Ventrilo everybody! BTW, Alara, drow can't see through magical darkness w/o certain feats and/or spells.

[AlmightyTDawg]

T-Dawg, sorry. I missed the math. Seeing as how I didn't set a real number on the DMFI/DM Wand xp awards reduction proposal, how does it raise the amount of xp needed to be gained to such astronomical amounts? And, let me be clear, it's not an idea I'm in love with, I merely introduced it as a means to keep ECL progression slower than non-ECL progression. Because, as long as that happens, there's no real balance issue. ECL races stay the relative levels behind non-ECL races and everybody can live with that I'm certain.

As it turns out I misread your numbers, but I got the basic idea right.

All ECL races begin play with half the needed experience points to move to second level, while all non-ecl races begin with 0 experience points as they would normally. Which means, humans, elves, gnomes, dwarves, halfings, half-elves and half-orcs, all begin play with 0xp or 1xp. And, duergar begin with 1500xp, drow begin with 3000xp, and svirfneblin begin with 5000xp. Yes, yes. There are those of you shouting to the heavens right now. "NOT FAIR! He gets more xp than I do!" Let's remember that as a non-ecl race you will advance much faster than your ECL counterparts. And also we're not in Kindergarten. Wink But let me finish.

All, experience points awards would be reduced to a percentage of what would be a normal award based on Level Adjustment. The higher the LA, the lower the percentage. An example using arbitrary numbers would be, if a human, elf or dwarf received 100xp then a tiefling would receive 75xp as an LA+1 PC, a drow would receive 66xp as an LA+2 PC and a svirfneblin would receive 33xp as a LA+3 PC. Again numbers are for show only.

You're going off the base Obsidian system (meaning level 2 happens when CL = 2 in the ECL system, starting from 0xp) and taking half of that away in the first paragraph. Then, in the second one, you're using a percentage award based on level adjustment. Turns out I didn't read your numbers closely - I just went and grabbed the old adjustment (CL/ECL), so I misspoke and overestimated you. The numbers wouldn't be astronomical, but they would be higher.

But in any case, right now, the baseline system we're going to use will start LA+1 at 1000xp, LA+2 at 3000xp, and LA+3 at 6000xp. And that's it. We don't need any percentage adjustment after that.

That is the Obsidian-implementation mapped onto our old adjustment ratio system. While some others have called this "free XP," I personally believe that's been thoroughly debunked with three distinct explanations/models. Strip away the numbers for a moment and bring it back to one simple concept - an LA-race has to gain LA*1000xp more at each level than a normal.

Hopefully the numbers up there indicate that it's not too far off from what you were proposing - and in fact better. I consider that the baseline until someone makes a compelling argument - either that ALFA should be more decidedly hostile to LA-races, or that some system is better and has more support.

Regarding the low-level treadmill generally, here's a possible middleground. Optional XP. On character generation, players spawn into a "loading" zone by which they can generate their outfits and gear and such things. And in that is a little lever that one can pull (with a dialog window) - that will give 1000xp.

Sure it's a half-assed solution (because I'm known for those) - but if you're "hardcore" and want to start at level 1, be our guest. If you want to play an LA-race, you don't get level 2, but you get a decent bump. Let players vote with their feet, and put in a mechanism that puts a small hedge against our near legendary low-level danger. I think what it would do is give designers a bit more flexibility in their static content to not need to expect level 1 fragility, but let them skirt the line a little bit. In that sense, it's plenty of heart-pounding danger for those staying level 1 on CharGen, and still appropriate for those opting for level 2.

On a related note, Mulu's right that ECL abilities can be reflected as innate wealth (something I did awhile ago on the wealth curve issue), but I think it's much easier to handwave the "slow advancement" counterbalance then to get into the picky numbers game we could get into.

[Veilan]

BTW, Alara, drow can't see through magical darkness w/o certain feats and/or spells.

Really? I actually tested two days ago using the ultravision spell (which per NWN description gives low-light vision + darkvision) and got no penalties to hit in darkness, etc.. Huhm.

Alara, and I spoke on Ventrilo the other night and within about 10 minutes he completely understood where I was going with this and what I was trying to accomplish. Ventrilo everybody!

Har, indeed - the only disadvantage to Ventrilo, I guess, is that you can't demonize the people disagreeing with you nor use snide rhetoric as easily, eh?

[Veilan]

While some others have called this "free XP," I personally believe that's been thoroughly debunked with three distinct explanations/models. Strip away the numbers for a moment and bring it back to one simple concept - an LA-race has to gain LA*1000xp more at each level than a normal.

At each class level. There is no "thorough debunking" of what is an opinion, and this is your opinion that the racial abilities are not the equivalent of the LA adjustments in class levels.

The fact remains that an LA character is a character of effectively level +x. This is non-disputable while playing DnD, and it makes a lot of sense - the level 1 snap-shot, once again, is entirely insufficient to base a whole argument on. The level 1 snap-shot is why I agree with Inaubryn that there's merit in trading to get initial starting xp for a slower advancement later - it's handwaving, sure, but I think it's alright if calibrated properly.

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.

So, no, you haven't debunked the fact that LA races in DnD and the game we play are characters of a higher effective level than their class levels suggest. We can certainly get rid of this consideration - by losing the abilities that make it so. Discussing whether those abilities warrant what DnD says they are imho is a vain endeavour and seems to boil down to a matter of opinion and gameplay capability (Mikayla, certainly well trained in handling a Drow's special abilities to a character's advantage, says she could accept having to catch up on the xp - my concern there still rests with new player entries who may not be hardcore drow-only players but try out a drow after their gnome died before moving to their dwarf concept).

The fact is that in a campaign where a drow starts with 3000xp, so does the human, as a 3rd level character. With equal wealth, exp, etc.. That is why the Obsidian system is a compromise - it allows you to play an LA character in a campaign where you normally couldn't (you don't have the starting xp to "afford" it, so to say), but says you have to catch up on it. It's quite fair number wise, but it is rather painful on that first level. So, with the ALFA 1 system, there are free xp if you accept that we play DnD.

The substance of DnD offering us several options how to cope with LA races in a level 1 campaign - lesser races and savage species for instance - points out pretty clearly that there are differences in gameplay and power that need to be addressed. You say it doesn't apply here, well, that's an opinion as well - a PW certainly is a different beast, but it does not change the basic usefulness of ability boosts, SR, combat-avoidance spells like invisibility and darkness etcetera - in fact, in a PW those may be more useful considering the additional amount of exposure to combat and sometimes non-DMed combat. And then in the special case of ALFA, it gets even more powerful as some of those abilities are one's that normal players, in the reality of the game, don't even have access to them - not many people with a hat of 20 SR running around, are there.

But as I said, that's not the real point. Reality is that LA+2 races are usually not played in level 1 campaigns (I should say 0xp campaigns) because they are deemed too powerful for that - on average a level 1 duergar or drow kicks a level 1 human's ass, same for any other case where the class level is the same.

Let's look at the criteria that I think we want:

Necessary: A level playing field without giving out severe advantages to anyone based on starting race.

This is, imho, non-negotiable, just as it's non negotiable that character wealth standards are universal.

Additional:
- not too much level 1 pain
- keeping "flavourful" abilities
- comparable progression in wealth and xp

So, let's take a look at some of the systems:

Obsidian system:

pros:
- keeps all abilities
- allows starting and playing an LA character in a level 1 campaign

cons:
- let's people be stuck at 1 class level for an extended amount of time, likely creating frustration
- need to consider where wealth progression gets tied shifted fully to effective character level (minor problem)
- still allows people to create notably more powerful starting characters than others (rather small issue)

Lesser races:

pros:
- allows exotical races by taking away the LA problem
- faster level progression, equal to any other character
- ties in wealth seamlessly

cons:
- loses the powerful abilities

ALFA 1 system:

pros:
- allows starting and playing an LA character in a level 1 campaign by letting them start with the exp for their effective character level
- keeps all abilities
- normal level progression

cons:
- some handwaving on the wealth (minor problem)
- still allows people to create notably more powerful starting characters than others (again not a big issue, imho)
- not fair to non-LA races, who do not have the option to start with higher effective character level on another race of their choice (and this I think is the dealbreaker here)

Appropriate Starting XP system (all characters start with XP equal to the requirement of the highest supported starting effective level):

pros:
- treats everyone perfectly equal - wohoo
- allows LAs races without problem
- keeps all LA race abilities
- ties in seamlessly with wealth

cons:
- horrible can of terror filled with deadly sandworms of mauling

As you can see, somewhere some compromise has to be made unless we are willing to accept discrimation against certain racial choices. I'm frankly not, but if that were the majority of ALFA's opinion, then so would it be.

I'm also not opposed to slicing and dicing a bit like Inny suggested - "give some free starting boost, but slow down progression later on" - but that would have to be worked out by the LA community what they like and can agree on, then if it's within fair bounds, we should just rubber-stamp it. I fully agree with you that their opinion there should be considered strongly, even though, of course, ALFA rules are going to affect everyone who may at some point decide to try a duergar, svirf or drow.

I hope we can eventually agree on the fact that LA races are more powerful than other races, though, which is of course part of their appeal (I mean this roleplay wise), and stop trying to reinvent DnD where it's not appropriate.

On the tangent of level 1 survivability: I think this should actually be a bit easier overall in ALFA 2 not only due to content, but also due to some systems of xp acquisition that are being considered and worked on.

Alright, enough key-mashing for now.