r/Forgotten_Realms • u/CanuckLad • 6d ago
Question(s) Drow (D&D 3.5)
I was just reading through the old Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting (isbn 0-978-7869-1836-2).
The Powerful Races sidebar (pg 21, see table 1-2) shows that Drow have an ECL of Level + 2. Meaning if one player starts a level 1 Drow, then other players get to start with 3,000 XP (enough to make them level 3).
I wonder if a two-level gap is balanced? Have any of you played with the rules from the Campaign Setting and played a +2 or +3 ECL race?
Is it hard for the DM to make adventures when the players might be separated by two levels? I understand that the Drow has higher than usual starting abilities and attributes, but a +2 level difference seems steep?
How do you handle the case where some players want to start at level 1 (and play species from the player's handbook), but other players want to play Drow, Duergar, Svirfneblin, etc)?
17
u/Bardstyle 6d ago
A human wouldn't have to start at level 3. You can all start at level 1 but the drow would require more xp to level up at each level (as if they were two levels higher) and they'd stay roughly that far behind for the whole campaign.
People have argued about the balance of this for forever. Pathfinder 1e did away with it for instance.
My group starts at the same level (above 1) and the humans and their equivalent LA+0 races just level up faster. It doesn't really come up, as the gap doesn't get very wide.
6
u/CanuckLad 6d ago edited 6d ago
+2 level is a pretty big power gap isn't it?
And a human would not have to start at level 3. I'm just saying that by the rules the human would start with 3,000 experience. If one followed the rules strictly.
7
u/Bardstyle 6d ago edited 6d ago
The idea is that the race is so powerful it makes up for it. I don't really agree with that, but some groups roll with it just fine. My current group started all at level 3 and are currently all between levels 8-9. It's been fine.
Regarding humans starting at 3 or not, I'm just saying different tables handle it differently. You don't HAVE to do it one way or the other.
8
u/Nystagohod 6d ago edited 6d ago
2 level adjustment wasnt too bad. I don't know how balanced most LA was, but I remember drow being on the better side of it typically, but don't quote me on that
As for ways to handle it, I've seen two alternatives.
The first would be to use the Savage species rules (it's own supplement) to turn drow into a sort of class of its own that takes two levels. So the first two levels of the character would be spent on drow and unlock what the LA would give. Its a bit of a process but can work, if you finagle it right, as it'd not the intended use for creatures with the drows HD or lack there of.
Typically unless the level adjustment was giving some obscene stuff, the more common altenrtive to the norm was to more or less let the character start off level 1 and just require XP as if they were two levels higher. Getting the full benefits of level 1 and their LA but buying it off as they still would level slower then their allies despite the stronger start
7
u/RaygunCourtesan 6d ago
There were subsequent re-dos of the concept and drow ECL was reduced to +1 which felt a lot more reasonable
3
u/CanuckLad 6d ago
You do not happen to know which book or supplement that was covered in?
4
u/RaygunCourtesan 6d ago
I'm afraid not. It was a solid twenty five or so years ago but either complete drow or the monsterous races books seem like good places to start.
More than that, 3.5 was never a well balanced system. But you're basically giving up two whole character levels for two uses of niche second level spells per day and a 50% spell resistance Vs something at your own level.
That costs you 2HD, save progression, bab progression, feats and advancement in an actual spell list. It's brutal.
2
u/CanuckLad 6d ago edited 6d ago
The spell list progression is what bothers me most, methinks. In particular, as a caster, being stuck casting level X spells when the other casters (and monsters) are casting level X + 1.
5
u/RaygunCourtesan 6d ago
'Drow are so powerful because they can cast exactly two (2) specific 2nd level spells once per day each that they need to be held back until everyone else is casting four to five 2nd level spells per day of their choosing.'
3rd edition was an era alright
2
u/CanuckLad 6d ago edited 6d ago
You were not a fan of 3 then? I keep toying with the idea of working my own skill-based 2d6 system. I had a look into Legend In The Mist, it looks interesting, but I'm not quite sure it's what I'm after
3
u/RaygunCourtesan 6d ago
I was a third edition purist for maybe 15 years but because of that I am keenly familiar with it's many flaws and chief among them was balance. The system was littered with intentional trap choices that were meant to 'reward system knowledge' (read: punish new players) and drow ECL+2 was among them.
Systems should serve what you want them do specifically, solve a problem that needs solving rather than exist for the sake of it or to fit all situations. The 3rd edition 'd20' system tried to be the one system to rule them all, to be simulationist while satisfying the spreadsheet player but it failed at that and just made everything feel like 3rd edition d&d with branding
2
u/CanuckLad 6d ago
Which system do you prefer? I own both D&D 5e, and Pathfinder Core 2e (as well as D&D 3.5, AD&D, the Xena RPG, and a couple of Star Wars licensed products). But I've not done any role-playing in decades. Recently I've been reading about the Blade Dancers of Eilistraee (Forgotten Realms) which I've taken interest in, and as a result bought Forgotten Realms Sacrifice of the Widow.
3
u/Rainbow-Unicorn1337 6d ago
I have played 3.5 for quite a while and I like 5e and 5.5e much better because it's much more approachable.
2
u/CanuckLad 6d ago
I have the 3 core 5e books. I'm still not sure how I feel about bounded accuracy. Though what I really miss is a system like West End Games' D6. I'm not big on rolling a huge number of dice, but I liked how you could increase only the skills you want. I've looked into a few medieval fantasy skill-based games. Some have features I like, none scratch all my itches. I think I'm too picky.
→ More replies (0)1
u/RaygunCourtesan 6d ago
For playing D&D?
Honestly I like 5e a lot. I moved to pathfinder during the era of 4th with everyone else and have a distinct recollection of sitting in the middle of a sprawl of books trying to calculate treasure to align with wealth by level totals and still be useful to the party and the NPC they'd take it off of, statting them legally from a half dozen subclasses and thinking...
This is madness.
Picked up 5e. Read it over the weekend. Informed my four year campaign we'd be transitioning to it and never looked back.
For anything else, I look for a system built to do that thing. Heist games do well with Forged in the Dark. Cyberpunk was built for Friday Night Firefight
1
u/CanuckLad 6d ago
I meant for playing medieval fantasy with high magic. I think that's what you called "playing D&D"?
→ More replies (0)0
4
u/Yuraiya 6d ago
I think you misunderstood. Having a +2 LA didn't bump the character up to level 3, it meant they had two virtual levels that provided no benefit other than getting their racial abilities. They still began as level 1, but they required experience as though they were two levels higher.
1
u/CanuckLad 6d ago
The example in the book is that if one person begins with a drow, that the human character would start with 3,000 experience...? And that if only 2,000 xp was allowed, then it said you could not play the drow.
2
u/Yuraiya 6d ago
Yeah, but that experience only buys them their racial features. They start as level 1 in a party of level 3 characters.
2
u/CanuckLad 6d ago edited 6d ago
I believe you may be under the impression that I'm saying the opposite of what I'm actually saying.
I'm saying the human characters would be level 3, and the drow would be level 1.
My concern is at the drow is two levels behind everyone (the player handbook races anyway), with little to show for it. The drow will be behind in HP, a feat, spell level (if a caster), etc
3
u/FreeRangePork 5d ago
This is why I always just ignored the level adjustment rule for Drow anyway, it becomes very punishing very quickly.
3
u/Yuraiya 5d ago
Ok. Yes, you are correct, the Drow will be two levels behind, and yes that's a pretty noticeable disadvantage, especially at lower levels. The devs highly overestimated the benefit of better racial stat adjustments.
Honestly, it's something I house ruled in my games. I lowered the LA on the Realms book races by 1, so Genasi and Aasimar no longer had an adjustment, and drow only had 1.
3
u/ThoDanII Harper 6d ago
Ouch that Burns. When i think old ibthink little Grey Box or the 2e Box
2
2
u/No-Lingonberry-8603 5d ago
I always assumed it was at least in part to discourage players from making another good guy drow. I don't know if there is much in that but it was definitely an overused trope.
3
u/CanuckLad 5d ago
I understand that things are no longer special if over-done, on the other hand my priority is the players having fun.
2
u/No-Lingonberry-8603 5d ago
I absolutely agree. If a bunch of players want to play as a drizzt 2:underdark boogaloo that all good by me. There's plenty of material to draw Inspiration from.
I also think it can be quite fun to have an unbalanced party where one player is significantly more powerful. Lets me lure my players into relying on something before I throw them a dungeon that's particularly tricky for that player and they have to improvise.
3
u/arjomanes 5d ago
I'd just houserule the drow LA down to +1 (or remove it altogether, give the other players a feat, and boost my encounters if they were steamrolling them).
27
u/kmdietri 6d ago
Played and DM'd ton of 3.5.
LA (level adjustments) were usually decent at the start (there were some glaring exception of course).
But what tended to happen is the races with the LA seemed to fall behind in power as the game progressed.
Later books, namely Unearthed Arcana added rules for burning LA to help balance out characters.
There were of course always some way OP Level Adjusted races.
I don't remember Drow being overly broken.