LA-buyoff question

[drack]

OK, so the rules are here: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/races/reducingLevelAdjustments.htm

So you are first able to start buying off the level adjustment at the level stated does that mean lets say I reach level 18, and I buy off a point from my +6 LA, can I then buy off another as soon as I would next level up?

[Urpriest]

No, you need to wait three levels in between buying off LA.

Also, remember that RHD and LA won't count in determining when you get to buy off LA, so that level 18 would be ECL 24 at least.

[drack]

Ah, true true, and thanks for the help :smallbiggrin:

[whibla]

No, you need to wait three levels in between buying off LA.

This is true, but not the whole truth, unfortunately...



...So you are first able to start buying off the level adjustment at the level stated does that mean lets say I reach level 18, and I buy off a point from my +6 LA, can I then buy off another as soon as I would next level up?

As Urpriest stated, no. What he didn't say is that for a LA:6 character the first time you can buy of is lvl 18, which gives you a LA of +5. You can only buy this off when you have accumulated 15 more class levels on top of the original 18 requirement, which will take you to LA: 4, and this can then be reduced to LA: 3 after an additional 12 class levels and so on.

After each LA reduction you recalculate your new buy-off point by mulitplying your new (current) LA by 3, and adding that to the previous buy-off class level requirement.

For an LA of +6 the complete list of buy-off levels is:
18th level -> LA 5
33th level -> LA 4
45nd level -> LA 3
54st level -> LA 2
60th level -> LA 1
63th level -> LA 0.

Hope you like playing Epic campaigns... :smallamused:

*EDIT* My maths sucks...:smalleek:

[Duke of URL]

All of which just goes to show how borked the LA buyoff system is.

Don't get me wrong, I totally "get" LA, and why it's necessary -- some abilities are clearly worth more than just racial hit dice would account for, and it avoids having to totally rewrite every playable race as a "monster class". But we all know that those advantages are attenuated over time as the power of class levels increase (except for classes like Fighter, which only increase linearly). So, LA buyoff of any form is at least better than nothing.

The UA system just really doesn't work well outside of +1 or +2 adjustments. Yeah, you can pay off a +3 by ECL 20, but even at that point, you can see how much you're lagging, and any initial perks you got are being curb-stomped by players with roughly 2 more class levels than you.

That's why in Boundless Horizons, we made a simpler LA reduction system, and one that can be easily applied to stock 3.5 as a house rule -- for every three class levels gained (not including RHD), you reduce your existing LA by 1, to a minimum of 0. Essentially, you'd gain a class level but remain at the same ECL due to the LA drop, meaning you'll gain XP faster than any non-adjusted teammates. When starting at a higher level, you start 1/2 level behind the party start level for each +1 or LA you get to remove due to class levels (there's a simple chart to figue this out).

Now, this accomplishes much the same objective as the UA version, but in a far less penalizing fashion and much easier from the math standpoint.

[drack]

Ah thanks guys. for the most part I don't really use it much, just wanted to get a firm grasp of it before this game I'm doing :smallbiggrin:

:smallsigh: DM and players are doing it wrong as I feared... why am I always the one pointing out that they are reading it wrong in their favor with these sorts of things...

Oh well, such is life :smallbiggrin:

Thanks a bunch guys

[Urpriest]

snip

Thanks for the correction. Yes, it's 3 per new LA, so a wait of 15, then of 12, etc...

[whibla]

All of which just goes to show how borked the LA buyoff system is.

Don't get me wrong, I totally "get" LA, and why it's necessary -- some abilities are clearly worth more than just racial hit dice would account for, and it avoids having to totally rewrite every playable race as a "monster class". But we all know that those advantages are attenuated over time as the power of class levels increase (except for classes like Fighter, which only increase linearly). So, LA buyoff of any form is at least better than nothing.

The UA system just really doesn't work well outside of +1 or +2 adjustments. Yeah, you can pay off a +3 by ECL 20, but even at that point, you can see how much you're lagging, and any initial perks you got are being curb-stomped by players with roughly 2 more class levels than you.

That's why in Boundless Horizons, we made a simpler LA reduction system, and one that can be easily applied to stock 3.5 as a house rule -- for every three class levels gained (not including RHD), you reduce your existing LA by 1, to a minimum of 0. Essentially, you'd gain a class level but remain at the same ECL due to the LA drop, meaning you'll gain XP faster than any non-adjusted teammates. When starting at a higher level, you start 1/2 level behind the party start level for each +1 or LA you get to remove due to class levels (there's a simple chart to figue this out).

I would not claim the LA system is perfect, or even balanced, but it does serve its purpose to a degree.

The differences, however, between a +1 or +2 LA, which in most cases simply gives a few (and in most cases, low) stat bonuses, a +4 LA, which often gives things such as extraordinary flight, SR, DR, significant stat bonuses, and often level scaling SLAs, and a +6 LA which offers additional benefits such as natural invisibility, polymorph capabilities, and so, are significant even at higher levels.

Without a downside, which is basically what your system seems to offer, there's no reason, from a powergamer's perspective, not to play a LA+6 race. You gain the upfront benefits, and before you reach epic levels you've still got those benefits but none of the 'negative' adjustment that would normally be part and parcel of those benefits.

While I'm all for overhauling the LA buy-off system, your system, imo, goes far too far, and relegates any core race to an underclass. This is not a desirable outcome, in my view.


Now, this accomplishes much the same objective as the UA version, but in a far less penalizing fashion and much easier from the math standpoint.

As I say, it may penalise players who want to play an LA race less, but the flip side is that it penalises anyone who isn't by a corresponding amount. As for 'harder' maths being a reason for it, as you mention above, you've produced a table. The maths only has to be done once for each base LA.

[drack]

honestly I think it's a little silly to begin with. abilities from your race may fade, but chances are you've gone one of two routs. the first is that you got stat boosts which help the classes you point them toward as much as level. The second is that the race had a cool ability. For instance you may have decided to play a vampire because they can go gassious at ill and explore. that doesn't really stop being useful you just need to use it differently. For instance you may not fully leave the wall allowing you to dodge back, or you may escape through loose dirt rather than risking teleportation with all the anti-teleport spells there are. Personally I don't really see why you nee LA buyoff at all beyond as you said to make power-gamers happier. After all 2 LA can give just as big of stat boosts as some of the much higher LA races. (Though I suppose I could see the justice in a DM offering it to a PC who is falling behind the pack)

[Duke of URL]

Without a downside, which is basically what your system seems to offer, there's no reason, from a powergamer's perspective, not to play a LA+6 race. You gain the upfront benefits, and before you reach epic levels you've still got those benefits but none of the 'negative' adjustment that would normally be part and parcel of those benefits.

It's less penalizing, not un-penalizing. A level-adjusted character will always still lag non-adjusted characters in class advancement, and by a larger amount the more LA they start with. If you play a high LA race, you will start behind the rest of your team and stay behind for your entire career.

The only major difference between this mechanism and the UA mechanism, other than getting rid of the convoluted math (which was really just a complicated way of saying: lose one level's XP, thereby reducing your ECL by 1), is speed. In the BH version, it treats every +1 of LA identically, regardless of whether your total is high or low -- at level 3, you lose +1 LA. Three levels later, you lose another. Etc. The difference between a +5 and a +6 template is +1, after all, and why should that +1 be treated any different than +0 to +1 or +2 to +3?

As to your powergamer argument, let's look at it from "starting party level = 20". If I go with a LA +0 race, I have 20 full class levels to use. You go with a +6 LA creature -- using the rules for higher-level starts, you'd be able to "buy off" +5 of that, but that puts you 2 1/2 levels behind, too, making you 16 class/RHD levels (halfway to 17th) with still a +1 adjustment (ECL 17.5). At a game approaching epic levels, are the benefits of a +6 LA race/template going to compensate for being at least 4 class levels behind?

[Deophaun]

As to your powergamer argument, let's look at it from "starting party level = 20". If I go with a LA +0 race, I have 20 full class levels to use. You go with a +6 LA creature -- using the rules for higher-level starts, you'd be able to "buy off" +5 of that, but that puts you 2 1/2 levels behind, too, making you 16 class/RHD levels (halfway to 17th) with still a +1 adjustment (ECL 17.5). At a game approaching epic levels, are the benefits of a +6 LA race/template going to compensate for being at least 4 class levels behind?
Does your math take into account that the character is earning more XP per encounter than the rest of the group by virtue of being one or more levels behind?

[whibla]

I haven't seen your system, so obviously I can't comment on it, but clearly I misunderstood part of your previous post, or at least made a couple of assumptions that were not the case.

My first misunderstanding was thinking that a lvl 18 character would, at that point have paid off his LA. Ok, well that part is true, kind of, but what I was missing is that if you're creating a lvl 18 character at the off, the table tells you what level you're actually going to be, which will be lower than lvl 18, due to the experience loss in the process of gaining those levels.

The bit that's puzzling me is why you'd lose all those levels, as given in your example, in your system. If I play a LA +6 / 1st lvl character in a 7th level game everyone gains experience at the same rate. I hit 3rd level I'm now a LA +5 / 3rd lvl character, and everyone else is 9th level. At this point I'm gaining experience at a faster rate than the rest of the party (about 30% faster according to the XP tables in the DMG). This disparity in XP gain will continue until I reach the same level as the rest of the party, and, while I haven't done the maths, a rough calculation says that I'll be playing level tag with them all the way, remaining only one character level behind them all the way up to lvl 18. Compare this with your example of being four levels behind, and I'm sure you can see the disparity, and part of the reason for my confusion.

I might be wrong, as I say I haven't seriously crunched the numbers. Or there may be aspects of your system that, while existing, haven't been explained above.

Either way, while I think what you're doing is interesting, and has a certain merit, I'm not sure it would make a 'sensible' change to the existing system, without a few additional provisions in place. Again, just my opinion. If the system works for you then I'm certainly in no position to say anything against it.

[White_Drake]

I've had an LA question bugging me for some time, and I was wondering if you guys could help; if I take a level in a savage progression (gaining +1 LA), and then buy it off (reducing my LA to 0), and then take another level (returning to +1 LA), how do I resolve the next buy-off? Would I just treat it as though I began with +2 LA?

[whibla]

I've had an LA question bugging me for some time, and I was wondering if you guys could help; if I take a level in a savage progression (gaining +1 LA), and then buy it off (reducing my LA to 0), and then take another level (returning to +1 LA), how do I resolve the next buy-off? Would I just treat it as though I began with +2 LA?

Um...

I'm not sure I understand your question. Or if I do, I'm not sure you understand how Savage Progression works.

If you're progressing through a monster class, i.e. getting to play, for example, a troll from first level, and taking levels in the savage progression for that class you do not have a LA per se. You are playing as a "1st level Troll". Savage Species states that: "A monster character using these rules may not multiclass until it completes the full progression in its monster
class."

In other words, until you complete the 11 levels of troll (from 6 RHD +5 LA) you cannot advance any levels in another character class. When, and only when, you finish the monster progession can you take levels in a character class. At that point you have a LA of +5, and can start to pay it off in the normal manner (assuming your DM is playing that optional rule), so when you reach 15th level in any (combination of) character class, giving you a total ECL of 26 (CL 15 + 6 RHD + 5 LA), you can pay off your first level of LA. At that point LA buy-off progression continues as I outlined above.

If I've misunderstood what you're asking, sorry. Please be a bit more specific, and I'll try to explain further.

[drack]

I think he means an acquired template using +1 LA as an example of for instance if a DM were to rule an intelligent skeleton of his character or the like as +1La or something. :smallwink:

[White_Drake]

I'm talking about the savage progressions presented online for templates. I'd forgotten about the rules in Savage Species though, do they apply to those too?

[drack]

you might be able to acquire one if a mage catches you and starts experimenting, but otherwise I believe you need to start with it.

[whibla]

I'm talking about the savage progressions presented online for templates.

Any chance you can provide a link to the specific one(s) you're talking about please?


I'd forgotten about the rules in Savage Species though, do they apply to those too?

I'd hazard a guess yes, but a guess is all it would be...

[willpell]

So, maybe this is absurdly obvious to me, but it just clicked for me that a level 3 character who's bought off a +1 LA has essentially paid 3000 XP for whatever benefits they originally got from the template (or the race, minus whatever you could have gotten by taking a similar race - though admittedly a lot of the LA races don't have any LA-less equivalents). So it occurs to me now that comparing them to the XP cost of certain spells or the like might be a meaningful way to evaluate the original potency of the template.

[drack]

Yup, buying LA is better. :smallbiggrin:

[Duke of URL]

So, maybe this is absurdly obvious to me, but it just clicked for me that a level 3 character who's bought off a +1 LA has essentially paid 3000 XP for whatever benefits they originally got from the template (or the race, minus whatever you could have gotten by taking a similar race - though admittedly a lot of the LA races don't have any LA-less equivalents). So it occurs to me now that comparing them to the XP cost of certain spells or the like might be a meaningful way to evaluate the original potency of the template.

Maybe, maybe not. What you need to consider in addition to that is the relative "hit" the character takes to "normal" characters over the same lifetime. A full level at low levels is vastly different from the same amount of XP spent at a higher level on spells or item crafting. Over the long haul, the XP cost is the same (though the one who spent it earlier has caught up somewhat over time), but the short-term impact to the two cases are much, much different.

[drack]

True short term you suffer a bit more, but in the long run the two stack. :smallcool: