Using/Ignoring LA

[Black Cross]

Hey. Long time lurker, part-time poster here. One of the things I've been rather curious about, but I seem to get mixed feelings in regards to external preference while lurking the forums, is an issue concerning level adjustments.

Our group has been ignoring LAs of creatures (and only creatures) that have both a level adjustment and racial HD for some time now. I was just curious how the Playground felt about creatures with racial HD in addition to LA.

Thank you in advance for your time.

[sonofzeal]

Hey. Long time lurker, part-time poster here. One of the things I've been rather curious about, but I seem to get mixed feelings in regards to external preference while lurking the forums, is an issue concerning level adjustments.

Our group has been ignoring LAs of creatures (and only creatures) that have both a level adjustment and racial HD for some time now. I was just curious how the Playground felt about creatures with racial HD in addition to LA.

Thank you in advance for your time.
Depends on the creature.

MM1 is particularly terrible for this. Virtually everything with LA/RHD is severely underpowered as-written, and you're perfectly justified giving exactly the sort of advantage you describe. Many later books took steps to correct that power curve though. Maugs, Marrulurks, and Black Ethergaunt all come to mind as races that really don't need this kind of boost.

Play it by ear, though, and you should be alright.

[Black Cross]

A timely response, and a helpful one. Largely, I enjoy using/battling monsters out of the first MM, but many of the creatures we use/encounter from other MMs/splatbooks typically don't have to worry about LA as they either have none, or are so low as to appear balanced.

Your input is greatly appreciated.

[Studoku]

There's no hard rule that can fix LA because the system is so inconsistent as it is. While this would make certain creatures playable, you need to apply this on a case by case basis- especially at higher levels.

For example, high RHD and LA creatures with spellcasting such as a Rakshasa or Deva typically have RHD equal to their caster level and LA based on their abilities. Under your houserule, a Rakshasa player with no levels would be ECL 7 and cast as if they were a level 7 sorcerer (and increase this through sorcerer/PrC levels). Compared to the sorcerer they would have d8 HD, 3 good saves, full bab and 8+int skillpoints for those levels, a bonus to all their stats, Damage Reduction, Spell Resistance and Natural Armour.

[Immabozo]

I'd say, since it's a house rule done for balance, you're obviously not going to abuse it and change it if the situation arises where it is abused. I say it's a decent house rule for yourr group, if it works for you and no one is trying to abuse it. But yes, it can be abused quite easily in later books. Pixe comes to mind.

[Komatik]

I'd ignore LA purely out of spite. Horrible, horrible mechanic.

[Yora]

LA is a great mechanic. It's just virtually always given a completely wrong value.

Pathfinder simplefied things greatly by ditching LA completely and instead counts the CR of a creature as character levels. CR 4 creature with 3 class level counts as a character with character level 7 for all purposes. Easy as that.
I've heard very few complaints about the results, so it doesn't seem to be that bad. Would also work for D&D without any problems.

[Jack_Simth]

I'd ignore LA purely out of spite. Horrible, horrible mechanic.
It may be done badly, but it, or something very much like it, is somewhat necessary if you're going to be allowing critters with different base 'power levels'. A Trumpet Archon (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/archon.htm#trumpetArchon) is a CR 14 creature with 12 hit dice that casts as a Cleric-14... and they're pretty good hit dice - d8, 8+Int skill points per level, full BAB, and all-good saves. Oh yes, and the Archon gets quite a few racial nifties - +14 natural armor, DR 10/Evil, Darkvision-60, spell resistance, several immunities, at-will greater teleport, tongues, some very nice stat-boosts (+10 Str, +6 Dex, +12 Con, +6 Int, +6 Wis, +6 Cha), a free weapon, an area hazard for opponents, and a funky special attack.

Compared to a Cleric-14, the only significant advantage the Cleric has is Turning/Rebuking (which is mostly useless except for fueling other things), and the spontaneous conversion. If we have the Trumpet Archon take a single level in Cleric, and compare to a Cleric-15, the Cleric's advantages are basically gone.

If you go the OP's route, ignore LA entirely, and just use the Trumpet Archon's Hit Dice, the Archon is a 12th level Character (or 13, with one level of Cleric) with all the same advantages, but this time it's being compared to a Cleric-12 (or 13).

If you're going to put a Cleric and a Trumpet Archon in the same party... the Trumpet Archon needs some form of handicap to keep the game balanced. While I'll grant you LA is rather hit or miss (as is CR), something very much like it is needed if you're doing monstrous PC's.

[gurgleflep]

Depends on the creature.

MM1 is particularly terrible for this. Virtually everything with LA/RHD is severely underpowered as-written, and you're perfectly justified giving exactly the sort of advantage you describe. Many later books took steps to correct that power curve though. Maugs, Marrulurks, and Black Ethergaunt all come to mind as races that really don't need this kind of boost.

Play it by ear, though, and you should be alright.

Monster Manual I had bad LAs? :smallconfused: I can't help but wonder what the mind flayer's - if their LA is overestimated - should have been.

[Kyberwulf]

The only thing that bothers me about LAs. Is that it's based of a "Standard" group. Which consists of a Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, Cleric, and maybe something else. In my groups, we seldom have that party makeup. So the LAs of such a group are always off. Who here really plays with the "standard" makeup?

[LanSlyde]

The only thing that bothers me about LAs. Is that it's based of a "Standard" group. Which consists of a Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, Cleric, and maybe something else. In my groups, we seldom have that party makeup. So the LAs of such a group are always off. Who here really plays with the "standard" makeup?

To be perfectly honest, I've started running LA and RHD on case by case basis. Comparing the relative power/versatility of the character in question to each other party member. It's fine being strong, but if you can effectively outperform every other party member at their own specialty, you need to do one of two things. Either play down your abilities and give your party members the spotlight, or rework the character.

I realize in some groups with a larger number of players you eventually run into overlap. This by itself isn't terrible, but if we have multiple wizard/rogue/fighters that can all basically be a one man party by themselves all gunning for center stage things can become tiresome.

Basically what I am getting at is if the main role of your character is stealth and yet you can easily go toe to toe with the party tank. I suggest you tone yourself down or keep your abilities in reserve for an emergency.... I deviated from the main point.. I apologize.

[Tuki Tuki]

LA and Racial HD are there to make the race on par with races that don't have LA and HD. If half ogres got +12 str and +4 con but where able to level up and be the same level as the rest of the party, I think that most parties would be made up of a spellcaster and 3 half ogres.

[big teej]

Hey. Long time lurker, part-time poster here. One of the things I've been rather curious about, but I seem to get mixed feelings in regards to external preference while lurking the forums, is an issue concerning level adjustments.

Our group has been ignoring LAs of creatures (and only creatures) that have both a level adjustment and racial HD for some time now. I was just curious how the Playground felt about creatures with racial HD in addition to LA.

Thank you in advance for your time.


something I tend to do, which I suppose we could tentatively refer to as a 'system' is to simply spread out what a critter gets over a given amount of HD and/or levels.

the example I like to use is the Ogre.

let's say Bob wants to play an ogre. but oh noes! we're starting at level one! ogres have 4 RHD and +2 LA this means bob's ogre is level 6!
Tim over there playing the human archer-fighter is not cool with this.

so instead....
*checks time*
:smalleek:

I actually don't have time to type out the long version it seems.
BUT
"ogres as characters have +10 Strength, –2 Dexterity, +4 Constitution, –4 Intelligence, –4 Charisma. "

so, at first level, bob's ogre gets 1d8 (because giant HD are 1d8) and ANY negatives to being an ogre (i.e., starts with - 4 charisma, - 4 intelligence, and - 2 dexterity)

he gets +4 str, and + 1 con.

he then gets skill points and whatnot appropriate to a giant with 1 hd.

when bob the ogre hits level 2, he gets another 1d8, +2 str, +1 con, and so forth.

when Bob hit's level 4, he's a full fledged ogre with no LA to worry about.*

this let's bob play an ogre from level one, and not really disproportional to his buddies, who are also level 4.

whenever you run across a critter that doesn't have enough HD to do this, you just add the LA as more hit die.

let's say a DM thought that +10 str over 4 levels was too fast. well we simply tack on two more levels of "ogre" (along with the 1d8 HD and skill points, etc.)


in summary, it's a modified version of the 'monster classes' presented in savage species...


tl;dr examine what a critter gets, divide this over a given amount of hit dice, go play a monster.

[137beth]

Ultimatly the value of the powers which trigger an increase in LA vary widely depending on the party's level and classes. While the LA provided is an estimate, ultimately the DM should decide the exact LA/penalties associated with a more powerful race.

I think pathfinder went in the right direction by eliminating LA--they wanted to emphasize that individual games should decide for themselves whether something was too powerful.

[Blackhawk748]

This is what my group does, for some creatures (Lizardfolk, weaker Were creatures etc) we tend to ignore the RHD and just take the lvl adj, but for some creatures (the minotaur comes to mind) need their RHD as otherwise the thing is a +2, and a very powerful +2

[Flickerdart]

Quite frankly, you would be wise to ignore every single measure of ECL in all of the books, and use what's possibly the only sensible advice in Savage Species: look at the creature, look at what level character will have roughly the same abilities, and give it that ECL.

[Blackhawk748]

"Monster Manual I had bad LAs? I can't help but wonder what the mind flayer's - if their LA is overestimated - should have been."

I think Mind Flayers are ok on their LA, when i think of bad LAa i think of Hobgoblins, +1 for what? +2 dex and +2 con, 60ft darkvision and +4 on move silently? then again i am comparing the hobgoblin to a lesser aasimar

[Kuulvheysoon]

LA on True Dragons is also vastly off. I've let a player play a Copper Dragon with ECL=HD, and ignored LA completely. It worked just fine in a moderately optimized campaign.

[Blackhawk748]

i've done the same with a White Dragon, i think a Red might need a small LA

[Komatik]

LA and Racial HD are there to make the race on par with races that don't have LA and HD. If half ogres got +12 str and +4 con but where able to level up and be the same level as the rest of the party, I think that most parties would be made up of a spellcaster and 3 half ogres.

Most parties woukd, if they were totally cutthroat, just run four spellcasters. Or do the abovementioned Trumpet Archon hilarity where you have 12 Hit Dice and still for some reason cast as Cleric 14, which is obviously a teensy bit broken.

A lot of the horrible LA's are due to drastic overestimation of physical capabilities and bad feats. Then again, that's no surprise at all.

@Yora, Jack_Simth
I don't think the mechanic is well-designed, because it gives nothing. In this game, racial abilities are at their most powerful at lower levels, where an LA means you have 1 Hit Die in a Level 4 party - guess once who's gonna die? And in a couple levels we get into the territory where class levels (and especially caster levels) outshine nearly anything ever and the LA becomes even more punishing.

It also results in frankly odd things where a human is somehow vastly more powerful a sorcerer than a daemon-blooded elf, which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Not a fan of the 4e solution either, though. An Ogre that has +2/+2 to Str/Con because yay mechanical equality takes out all the point of being a three-meter tall hulking brute.

In the end, I don't think an LA-style system is a proper way to handle things. Some good mechanical system might exist, but I personally prefer just asking "Do racial HD make sense for this creature? (Like they would for, say, a dragon) With or without, would it pose a problem in the game we're going to run?".

[Chronos]

Hobgoblins might be too weak to justify a +1 LA, but they'd be even more imbalanced at +0 LA. And it's best to err on the side of too high rather than too low, anyway: If you give hobgoblins an LA that's too high, then the result is just that nobody ever plays hobgoblins... Which, you know, really isn't all that bad a situation. On the other hand, if you allowed them at +0, then almost all mundane characters would want to be hobgoblins, and that would get absurd pretty quickly.

And dragons are one case where I absolutely would not waive LA. Racial hit dice are a major punishment for some creature types, but dragon (and outsider) RHD are actually pretty good. Plus dragons tend to have some pretty nice abilities, too.

[Komatik]

Human caster > Dragon of equal HD, at high levels anyway.

[sonofzeal]

LA is a great mechanic. It's just virtually always given a completely wrong value.

Pathfinder simplefied things greatly by ditching LA completely and instead counts the CR of a creature as character levels. CR 4 creature with 3 class level counts as a character with character level 7 for all purposes. Easy as that.
Actually, that ends up horribly broken in the other direction. If people complain less about it, then that may just be because people on these boards tend to like stuff that makes them more powerful. Human nature, y'know?

A CR 4 enemy is a challenge to a full party of lvl 4 characters - without PC ability scores or WBL. A CR 4 Minotaur might be roughly on par with a lvl 4 melee-type... but a Minotaur PC is going to be a hell of a lot more potent.

Not to mention the inherent problems caused by, y'know, a Minotaur PC having more HD than their party members. Many monsters have more HD than their CR, meaning by PF rules a PC playing those is hitting milestones long before the rest of the party. A Cloud Giant PC with five levels of Fighter is already getting their lvl 21 feat while the rest of the party is lvl 16.

Do you really think that's an improvement over 3.5's implementation? A lot of 3.5 options aren't really playable, but I'd err on the side of "unplayably weak" over "unplayably strong" any day. At least then, a good optimizer might be able to make use of it for something, if they really know what they're doing and how to handle the disadvantages. As it stands though, it seems like most of the more advanced PF options are way up there in "DMG thrown at your face" territory.

[Jack_Simth]

@Yora, Jack_Simth
I don't think the mechanic is well-designed, because it gives nothing. In this game, racial abilities are at their most powerful at lower levels, where an LA means you have 1 Hit Die in a Level 4 party - guess once who's gonna die? And in a couple levels we get into the territory where class levels (and especially caster levels) outshine nearly anything ever and the LA becomes even more punishing.

It also results in frankly odd things where a human is somehow vastly more powerful a sorcerer than a daemon-blooded elf, which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Not a fan of the 4e solution either, though. An Ogre that has +2/+2 to Str/Con because yay mechanical equality takes out all the point of being a three-meter tall hulking brute.

In the end, I don't think an LA-style system is a proper way to handle things. Some good mechanical system might exist, but I personally prefer just asking "Do racial HD make sense for this creature? (Like they would for, say, a dragon) With or without, would it pose a problem in the game we're going to run?".

Don't get me wrong - I agree that the specific numbers on the LA's probably are not correct (especially when it comes to low-level characters with high LA's), but some form of handicap is necessary. Other than maybe the Pathfinder method (CR, but that's a little borked as well, just differently), I've yet to see any method that handles the handicapping well without requiring the DM to check every individual critter that the player may want with an eye towards "OK, so what tricks is the player planning with this, and do I want them in my game?"

[Komatik]

If none does it well, then just don't. Go over monster/strongrace character creation with the player/DM respectively, and make sure it won't cause problems by inappropriate feel and/or power level. Chances are the players will already be doing different things with differently-tiered and otherwise vastly different classes so it often doesn't end up mattering terribly much. There will be a small power disparity, but that can in part be what a player is looking for. As long as it doesn't ruin the game, of course.

[Blackhawk748]

Hobgoblins are a very weak +1 race, but you can just buy it off pretty soon so it isnt terrible, and if i ever want to play a hobgoblin i look into Kalamar anyway. But i have played a White Dragon at ECL 15 (i had no LA) and honestly i was just an interesting beatstick. I bought a ring that basically cast Enlarge Monster on me 3/day, and the rest i converted to silver pieces and turned into my horde, because well im a dragon and thats what im supposed to do. The big downside to being a dragon is that if you want armor its insanely expensive.

Which is another thing that needs to be remembered when you play something is, is there a non-mechanical downside. The above mentioned armor cost is a big one, and then you have to remember that most people are going to react badly to an ogre or a minotaur walking through town. Now this does depend on your DM, as most DMs try not to be a jerk to their players, but even nice DMs should play off the fact that if your playing a dragon and walking into a tavern people should freak out.

[Thomar_of_Uointer]

Pathfinder has a point-based race system, perhaps you could use that instead. Using it to build races, I've found it to be incredibly useful for saving the GM time in making a balanced race that won't completely overpower the characters who use it. The intent is that everyone in the party should have the same point total, and it's easy to make humans fit in because you can just dump all your points into having higher ability scores. The system also accounts for racial abilities falling off at higher levels when you're in a party with different power levels.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/arg-creating-new-races

[Jack_Simth]

If none does it well, then just don't. Go over monster/strongrace character creation with the player/DM respectively, and make sure it won't cause problems by inappropriate feel and/or power level. Chances are the players will already be doing different things with differently-tiered and otherwise vastly different classes so it often doesn't end up mattering terribly much. There will be a small power disparity, but that can in part be what a player is looking for. As long as it doesn't ruin the game, of course.Ah, so you're going the route of 'requiring the DM to check every individual critter that the player may want with an eye towards "OK, so what tricks is the player planning with this, and do I want them in my game?"' as your preferred, then?

[137beth]

Ah, so you're going the route of 'requiring the DM to check every individual critter that the player may want with an eye towards "OK, so what tricks is the player planning with this, and do I want them in my game?"' as your preferred, then?

Given that the alternative is "the DM doesn't know what race his players are before the game starts," then yes, I would say the DM should probably check the big choices you are making upon character creation. I'm curious, would you be comfortable DMing a group without knowledge of what classes/races the players were until after the game started? How would you know if what you had prepared was an appropriate challenge for the group?

[Jack_Simth]

Given that the alternative is "the DM doesn't know what race his players are before the game starts," then yes, I would say the DM should probably check the big choices you are making upon character creation. I'm curious, would you be comfortable DMing a group without knowledge of what classes/races the players were until after the game started?
No. But without a largish pre-approved list and/or some relatively simple conversion rules, the player can't build the character to submit for approval. Nor does the player have any guidelines on what critters might be appropriate to the game. Nor does the player have any guidelines on what his post-race resources will be, and so has no way to determine whether or not a given critter will be overpowered, in-line, or underpowered for the game.

And I don't exactly find that an acceptable solution, either.

[sonofzeal]

No. But without a largish pre-approved list and/or some relatively simple conversion rules, the player can't build the character to submit for approval. Nor does the player have any guidelines on what critters might be appropriate to the game. Nor does the player have any guidelines on what his post-race resources will be, and so has no way to determine whether or not a given critter will be overpowered, in-line, or underpowered for the game.

And I don't exactly find that an acceptable solution, either.
Eh, I've been here, and it's manageable.

In several PbP's I've been in, conversations about what a creature's LA should be are acceptable.

Player: "Yo, so I'm interested in Gnolls, how do you feel about dropping the RHD?"
DM: "I prefer to drop the LA. It's reasonable for them, and keeps numbers more similar across the party."
Player: "Sounds fair." *wanders off to finish their build*


.....what part of that isn't an acceptable solution?

[Chronos]

Yeah, you should start with some baseline assumptions about what's acceptable: If someone wants to play one of the standard PHB races (which most folks do, anyway), that's fine. Maybe expand that out to shifters, warforged, and changelings, especially if you're playing in Eberron. Then say something like "Anything with an LA of zero is probably acceptable, but double-check if it's not one of those", which gives the players enough to start making plans, but still lets the DM say no to crazy things like anthropomorphic bats.

[Thomar_of_Uointer]

Player: "Yo, so I'm interested in Gnolls, how do you feel about dropping the RHD?"
DM: "I prefer to drop the LA. It's reasonable for them, and keeps numbers more similar across the party."
Player: "Sounds fair." *wanders off to finish their build*


.....what part of that isn't an acceptable solution?

That works fine for gnolls and lizardfolk, but not for other monsters and templates. The point of having Level Adjustment is that the GM has some rules that he can trust, rather than having to risk making an incorrect decision. If Level Adjustment is set incorrectly then the solution is to change the LA, not declare the LA system broken.

(By the way, I do think the LA system is broken. I'd prefer that every monster race have racial traits on-par with the core races, and then either use racial feats or racial substitution levels to get the unique and powerful abilities in as the character gains levels. And all of this is based on the assumption that all classes gain an equal amount of power each time they gain a level, which is a patently false assumption in 3.5 D&D.)

[Komatik]

That kind of system has odd implications for characters, though. Like, say, a Raptoran wizard never having learned to fly, when the ability to fly should be linked to physical maturity, not character level. Likewise, the +2/+2 standard template Ogre just feels so wrong I'd never want to play one, for example.

It basically necessitates the kind of design they did with 4th Edition Eladrin, where you have a weak base form that then ascends to something greater. Or the sort of split into Weak-Ass Minotaur Species and Kickass Monster Minotaur Species that was also done almost just to get Minotaurs be playable.

[Thomar_of_Uointer]

That kind of system has odd implications for characters, though. Like, say, a Raptoran wizard never having learned to fly, when the ability to fly should be linked to physical maturity, not character level. Likewise, the +2/+2 standard template Ogre just feels so wrong I'd never want to play one, for example.

It basically necessitates the kind of design they did with 4th Edition Eladrin, where you have a weak base form that then ascends to something greater. Or the sort of split into Weak-Ass Minotaur Species and Kickass Monster Minotaur Species that was also done almost just to get Minotaurs be playable.

The best solution to that is to allow PCs of different levels in your party, or disallow low-level monsters or monsters that haven't taken all of their substitution levels yet. That's more or less what the intent of LA was in the first place, to say "this is a pretty powerful race, so we're going to mechanically make it not be a valid character at low levels."