How does LA reduction work?

[noparlpf]

How does this work for a LA+1 creature? UA says that when they gain their third class level, they can lose XP equal to (ECL-1)x1.000. So for a LA+1 creature, that's (4-1)x1.000=3.000 XP, or just about all of their experience, bringing them all the way down to ECL 2, right? Does this invoke the rule that "If this deduction would not reduce the character’s ECL by 1, the character’s XP total is set at the maximum of the level below his current ECL instead"? That would leave them able to level back up more or less just by stepping on an ant (yes I like hyperbole), which doesn't seem quite right.

Can somebody clear things up for me please?

[deuxhero]

I'd go with "no de-level, must have raw (not to be confused with RAW) XP"

[MesiDoomstalker]

That is exactly how its supposed to work. Your supposed to "level" away your level adjustment. Then, because of how the EXP system works, you'll get more EXP than your companions and you'll catch up quickly. Likewise, the way LA buyoff is worded, you'd have to have enough EXP over the appropriate level to pay for the buyoff and not "de-level" in one chunk of EXP which quite frankly won't happen much if at all.

[noparlpf]

But for the LA+1 buyoff, it doesn't work like that.
Say I'm playing a Dark human Rogue. At ECL 3, I have LA+1 and Rogue 2, and my current XP is 2.850. My party of four beats a CR 2 Dire Weasel and we each gain 150 XP. I now have 3.000 XP, I am ECL 4, and I can now level up to Rogue 3, or I can pay XP to reduce my LA to +0. I pay (ECL-1)x1.000 XP, or (4-1)x1.000=3.000 XP. I'm down to exactly 0 XP, and not only do I not gain Rogue 3 in order to reduce my LA, I lose Rogue 2 as well.
However, because of the rule that "If this deduction would not reduce the character’s ECL by 1, the character’s XP total is set at the maximum of the level below his current ECL instead", I end up having 2.999 XP, which is the maximum I can have at ECL 3.
Then I go shoot a pigeon and level up.
Doesn't that seem a bit off?

[MesiDoomstalker]

But for the LA+1 buyoff, it doesn't work like that.
Say I'm playing a Dark human Rogue. At ECL 3, I have LA+1 and Rogue 2, and my current XP is 2.850. My party of four beats a CR 2 Dire Weasel and we each gain 150 XP. I now have 3.000 XP, I am ECL 4, and I can now level up to Rogue 3, or I can pay XP to reduce my LA to +0. I pay (ECL-1)x1.000 XP, or (4-1)x1.000=3.000 XP. I'm down to exactly 0 XP, and not only do I not gain Rogue 3 in order to reduce my LA, I lose Rogue 2 as well.
However, because of the rule that "If this deduction would not reduce the character’s ECL by 1, the character’s XP total is set at the maximum of the level below his current ECL instead", I end up having 2.999 XP, which is the maximum I can have at ECL 3.
Then I go shoot a pigeon and level up.
Doesn't that seem a bit off?

Ah, I see what your saying. I never crunched the numbers nor has it come up. I just used it when starting with characters at higher level.

[Curmudgeon]

You've got your base figured incorrectly. You have 2 class levels and +1 LA, making your ECL 3. You need to be at 6,000 XP to go from ECL 3 to ECL 4 (3 class levels and +1 LA). At that time you can opt to swap 3,000 XP (half of your XP total) to remove the +1 LA, and you'll be at exactly the minimum for class level 3 with no LA.

[noparlpf]

I haven't checked the numbers for LA+2 and others yet. One minute.

LA+2: 6 (ECL 8) => +1; 9 (ECL 10) => +0
15.000 XP - (6-1)x1.000 = 10.000 XP (the minimum for 5 class levels, so it's okay)
36.000 XP - (10-1)x1.000 = 27.000 XP (1.000 less than the XP required for 8 class levels, so again we see a problem and they go up to 35.999 XP)

Well now. There's a problem here too. I have to assume I've misunderstood something, or else reducing LA+1 to LA+0 will leave you only 1 XP below the level you just gained.

[noparlpf]

You've got your base figured incorrectly. You have 2 class levels and +1 LA, making your ECL 3. You need to be at 6,000 XP to go from ECL 3 to ECL 4 (3 class levels and +1 LA). At that time you can opt to swap 3,000 XP (half of your XP total) to remove the +1 LA, and you'll be at exactly the minimum for class level 3 with no LA.

So an ECL 2 Dark human Rogue 1 is born with 1.000 XP? I thought LA didn't give any XP and that XP only had to do with class levels.

Edit:

XP: This column on Table 3–2 shows the experience point total needed to attain a given character level—that is, the total of all the character’s level in classes.
So LA isn't factored in for how much XP you have or need.

[Tar Palantir]

That table could be more accurately described as being based on ECL rather than levels in classes. I don't have a reference at the moment, but I'm sure there's something in the rules for LA and ECL.

EDIT: Here's the quote, source http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monstersAsRaces.htm#levelAdjustmentandEffectiveCha racterLevel:


To determine the effective character level (ECL) of a monster character, add its level adjustment to its racial Hit Dice and character class levels.

Use ECL instead of character level to determine how many experience points a monster character needs to reach its next level. Also use ECL to determine starting wealth for a monster character.

[Z3ro]

Then, because of how the EXP system works, you'll get more EXP than your companions and you'll catch up quickly.

Sorry for a minor derail, but can someone explain to me how this works? They way I understood the leveling system (my group never uses buyoff) the average party level is used to determine XP; but once that's calculated, everyone gets the same. Do lower level characters get more, and higher level less? If, say, a party of 4 earned 4,000 XP, would everyone get 1,000 XP, or a different amount?

[mootoall]

So an ECL 2 Dark human Rogue 1 is born with 1.000 XP? I thought LA didn't give any XP and that XP only had to do with class levels.


No. An ECL 2 Dark Human Rogue 1 starts with 0 XP, just like everyone else. Then, he needs 3000 to level up to an ECL 3 Dark Human Rogue 2. Then, when he hits ECL 4, at 6000 XP, he can choose to either level up to a Dark Human Rogue 3, or stay as a Dark Human Rogue 2 with 3000 XP, putting him as a Dark Human Rogue 2 while everyone else is a level 4 character.

[noparlpf]

No. An ECL 2 Dark Human Rogue 1 starts with 0 XP, just like everyone else. Then, he needs 3000 to level up to an ECL 3 Dark Human Rogue 2. Then, when he hits ECL 4, at 6000 XP, he can choose to either level up to a Dark Human Rogue 3, or stay as a Dark Human Rogue 2 with 3000 XP, putting him as a Dark Human Rogue 2 while everyone else is a level 4 character.

Why does he need 3.000 XP rather than 1.000 in order to gain his second level of Rogue? Where in what book does it explain that LA works this way?

[mootoall]

Why does he need 3.000 XP rather than 1.000 in order to gain his second level of Rogue? Where in what book does it explain that LA works this way?

"Level Adjustment and Effective Character Level

To determine the effective character level (ECL) of a monster character, add its level adjustment to its racial Hit Dice and character class levels. The monster is considered to have experience points equal to the minimum needed to be a character of its ECL."

Sorry, turns out I was wrong. You do start out, along with everyone else, with 1,000 XP. My bad. But you have to get 2,000 XP, totaling 3,000, to get your second level, since your ECL would be 3 at that point, requiring a minimum of 3,000 XP.

[noparlpf]

Oh, okay. Now things make more sense. So a Dark human Rogue 1 has 1.000 XP and is ECL 2.

[mootoall]

Oh, okay. Now things make more sense. So a Dark human Rogue 1 has 1.000 XP and is ECL 2.

Yes. And it buys it off at ECL4, where, rather than being a Rogue 4, it is a Rogue 2 with 3,000 XP.

[Curmudgeon]

So an ECL 2 Dark human Rogue 1 is born with 1.000 XP?
Yes, that's right. It's not possible to play a character with +1 LA but no hit dice, so the character must be created ("born") at ECL 2, requiring 1,000 XP. In other words, if your friends start at level 1 with no LA, your LA +1 character won't join in their game until they reach level 2.

[noparlpf]

Except he won't always have precisely 3.000 XP, he might have 3.050 or something.
Nitpicking aside, things make more sense now.

[Savannah]

Sorry for a minor derail, but can someone explain to me how this works? They way I understood the leveling system (my group never uses buyoff) the average party level is used to determine XP; but once that's calculated, everyone gets the same. Do lower level characters get more, and higher level less? If, say, a party of 4 earned 4,000 XP, would everyone get 1,000 XP, or a different amount?

See DMG pg 36-37. Basically, each character's XP is calculated individually.

As an example, say you have a party of 3 level 5's and a level 2, who beat a CR 5 monster.
For the level 5's, the monster is worth 1,500 (XP for CR 5 at level 5) / 4 (total members in party) = 375 XP.
For the level 2, the monster is worth 1,800 (XP for CR 5 at level 2) / 4 (total members in party) = 450 XP.

[Z3ro]

See DMG pg 36-37. Basically, each character's XP is calculated individually.

As an example, say you have a party of 3 level 5's and a level 2, who beat a CR 5 monster.
For the level 5's, the monster is worth 1,500 (XP for CR 5 at level 5) / 4 (total members in party) = 375 XP.
For the level 2, the monster is worth 1,800 (XP for CR 5 at level 2) / 4 (total members in party) = 450 XP.

Thanks for the explanation; that's totally not how my groups do it.

[Doug Lampert]

Thanks for the explanation; that's totally not how my groups do it.
Average party level was the 3.0 rule up until shortly before 3.5 came out.
Savage species I believe had the individual awards rule, and it became the DMG rule in the 3.5 DMG. If your DM played 3.0 and didn't pay careful attention to the swapover he may be unaware of the actual rule and have just assumed it stayed the same.

Alternately at least some GMs don't like the XP is a river philosophy that 3.5 methods result in (there's no real long term XP cost to crafting or casting wish type spells for example because you'll almost always catch up quickly). I've actually seen at least one internet discussion where someone "invented" the 3.0 method as a "fix" to the 3.5 "problem" without realising that they were reverting to an older method.