Level Adjustment +0?

[GoblinGilmartin]

So, I've had a long-standing rule in my games not to allow any races with level adjustments. Sometimes while reading the 3.5 materials, I see races listed as Level Adjustment: +0. What does LA:+0 mean? Are these "safe" to play by my rule?

[Erik Vale]

LA +0 means that there is no level adjustment for use by players. Theoretically it's on par with the races normally used by players like humans, halflings, elves etc, so it should be safe...
But some templates are worth more than what they say for some builds others worth less.

[erikun]

Also note that, some creatures in D&D3e could have multiple Racial Hit Dice (RHD) alongside their Level Adjustment. A creature with 5RHD and +4LA that is a 1st level Fighter is basically equal to a 10th level character: they get HP and skills from their five RHD, HP and skills from their one level of Fighter, and add the +4LA to that. A creature with 5RHD and +0LA that is a 1st level Fighter would be equal to a 6th level character: five RHD and one level of Fighter.

Anything with 1RHD and +0LA is going to behave like your standard human, elf, or dwarf. They replace the 1RHD and simply take HP and skills from their class, instead. In theory, any 1RHD and +0LA creature is supposed to be equivalent to your standard human.

[Nerd-o-rama]

LA: +0, as long as it doesn't have multiple racial hit dice, is the alleged equivalent of a standard player-character race in the often arbitrary view of D&D 3.X's game designers. Goblins and Kobolds are LA: +0 races, alongside (most) elves, dwarves, half-orcs, etc.

Never confuse this with LA: --, which means inappropriate for a PC (or even a cohort) under all circumstances save the DM wanting to run a different game entirely from the baseline.

[NikitaDarkstar]

Also watch out for some templates that are a bit wonky, like the Necropolitan, it's technically an LA +0, but it has an XP cost so it can't and shouldn't be taken too early in a game, and can and most likely will cause a level drop when it is taken. Not sure if there's more like that but you know, don't just go by the Level Adjustment, some stuff really isn't equal to other things.

[Devils_Advocate]

Sometimes while reading the 3.5 materials, I see races listed as Level Adjustment: +0. What does LA:+0 mean?
It means that the creature in question has a level adjustment of +0. ;)

"Doesn't have a level adjustment" means "Has a level adjustment of +0" in the same way that "has no apples" means "has zero apples". Zero is the precise, purely mathematical entity here, divorced from human "baggage", suitable for communication with an alien intelligence. If anything, THAT is where the meaning lies. Don't you see? Zero is what you meant all along, but were only capable of imperfectly describing through the use of informal natural language, for you did not even truly know to what you referred! Until now, my friend. Until now.

Hopefully that clarifies matters.

Oh! Also, for future reference, system-specific questions like this belong in the Roleplaying Games sub-forums, in this case D&D 3e/3.5e/d20 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?59-D-amp-D-3e-3-5e-d20).

[Urpriest]

Every playable race has a level adjustment. Elves, Dwarves, Gnomes, are all LA +0 races. Not allowing players to play anything with a level adjustment means they can't play any races period. Not allowing them to play anything with a nonzero level adjustment is what you intended to do.

[Devils_Advocate]

I'd say that's going a bit too far, Urpriest. That's like insisting that everyone has a number of apples because zero is a number (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1633/is-zero-a-number).

Colloquially, saying that someone has a number of apples indicates that that individual has more than zero apples. Why, even more than one, I daresay!

So I wouldn't call Mastergilgamesh's phrasing incorrect, merely lacking the precision of pure mathematics.

[TuggyNE]

Every playable race has a level adjustment. Elves, Dwarves, Gnomes, are all LA +0 races. Not allowing players to play anything with a level adjustment means they can't play any races period.

With the possible exception of humans, which are not listed in the MM at all, and thus have no LA entry whatsoever. Yay everyone is humans forever!

[Urpriest]

I'd say that's going a bit too far, Urpriest. That's like insisting that everyone has a number of apples because zero is a number (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1633/is-zero-a-number).

Colloquially, saying that someone has a number of apples indicates that that individual has more than zero apples. Why, even more than one, I daresay!

So I wouldn't call Mastergilgamesh's phrasing incorrect, merely lacking the precision of pure mathematics.

Or, y'know, game rules text. :smallwink:


With the possible exception of humans, which are not listed in the MM at all, and thus have no LA entry whatsoever. Yay everyone is humans forever!

Yeah, humans are...weird.

[Rhynn]

I'd say that's going a bit too far, Urpriest. That's like insisting that everyone has a number of apples because zero is a number (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1633/is-zero-a-number).

Actually Urpriest's distinction is pretty important, because there are creatures in D&D 3.5 that have no level adjustment at all (usually represented by an em dash), which has a specific meaning (that they can't be PCs or cohorts).

You can play creatures with level adjustment +0, but not creatures with no level adjustment (LA —).

[Devils_Advocate]

Ah, right you are. So under the rule that only races without level adjustments are permitted, players would not be allowed to play e.g. halflings, but they would be allowed to play, say, beholders. :D

Hey, the group could make an all-beholder party! Maybe the campaign could be about a war between them and a rival group of beholders. Sounds like fun! :D