By pure raw, can I pick a +2 LA (cohort ) race as a player?

[CyberThread]

Just by pure raw, no DM fiat or little things like logic.

Has Wiz ever posted rules saying that things like blink dog which have Level Adjustment: +2 (cohort)


Can a player stick pick it as an option as a race, if Wiz never published any clarification or specific rules dealing with the (cohort ) segment.

[Rebel7284]

Going by pure RAW, if wizard indeed never clarified what (cohort) means, you would not be able to take it as you would not know how to calculate your LA. After all, you have an undefined value in your LA.

The intent is clear, it's meant only for cohorts, so only NPCs.

[Kazyan]

There's a line about this in the glossary.


Some creatures' level adjustment entries include the word "(cohort)." Although these creatures may be problematic as PCs, they make good companions for a character who has taken the Leadership feat.

It's not actually ruled out that you can play them, but it's not actually explicitly stated that you can play them as a cohort, either.

[OldTrees1]

RAW has never excluded a PC being the cohort of an NPC.

Although RAI does imply a prohibition.

And then we are at Rule 0 that says the DM can permit Blink Dog PCs

[ben-zayb]

Yes, it seems RAW has no problem if you roll a Petal Blink Dog.

[CyberThread]

hmm, due to dogs not being able to carry gear when they door, seems vow of poverty pouncer build is the solution.

[Ravens_cry]

I've always wanted to try making my avatar as a Petal.

[ben-zayb]

hmm, due to dogs not being able to carry gear when they door, seems vow of poverty pouncer build is the solution.I'm assuming you meant shadow pouncer? Plenty of chassis to choose from, then. Warblade (w/ Shadow Hand Martial Study), Swordsage, Totemist, Incarnate, Psychic Warrior, or Ardent, works.

[Karfsma]

He meant VoP, with some way to get pounce, as they cannot carry gear when they DDoor.

[CyberThread]

He meant VoP, with some way to get pounce, as they cannot carry gear when they DDoor.



Bingo, which means probably a natural attack build, or something that uses things like meldshaping/tiger strike

[HalfQuart]

I don't know... I think RAI is clear: an LA listing with (cohort) is not intended for use as a PC. A DM could allow it, but that's not RAI.

As far as RAW, I think it's a little murkier. I guess the two avenues for interpretation are:

The PC is a cohort, either of another PC or an NPC: But the Cohort section of the DMG on p104 seems pretty clear that a cohort is supposed to be an NPC and not a PC. It includes the sentence: "[cohorts] are hired by or seek out a PC or PCs, and they work out a deal agreeable to both parties so that the NPC works for the characters." There is a specific sentence clarifying that NPCs can have cohorts too, but not a clarifying sentence that PCs can be cohorts. Also the way cohorts get XP is wonky, and not particular compatible with a PC. So I would say RAW is that a PC can't be a cohort, and thus can't be a race that is classified with an LA designating them for cohorts.

Certainly PCs can be hired by NPCs in a cohort-like way (that's a pretty common adventure hook), but I don't think this makes them cohorts in the D&D rules-defined way.

The (cohort) tag doesn't explicitly say it is prohibited for PCs: Page 311 of the MM1 says "Some creatures’ level adjustment entries include the word “(cohort).” Although these creatures may be problematic as PCs, they make good companions for a character who has taken the Leadership feat. Some other creatures aren’t intended for use as PCs or cohorts but can become companions through the use of the Improved Familiar feat. In these cases, the level adjustment entry is a dash followed by the words “(Improved Familiar).”

And page 7 says: "Level Adjustment. This line is included in the entries of creatures suitable for use as player characters or as cohorts (usually creatures with Intelligence scores of at least 3 and possessing opposable thumbs)."

Certainly there isn't language that says clearly "level adjustment entries that include the word "(cohort)" cannot be used as PCs". Although I actually can't find a similar sentence that says "monsters with level adjustment entries of "--" cannot be used as PCs." -- is that in there somewhere?? -- although it is certainly implied in several places.

So, at best RAW is murky, but I would say LA (cohort) races are not permitted by RAW. But I guess it essentially comes down to your definition of RAW: Is it permissible by RAW if it isn't explicitly prohibited? Or is it prohibited by RAW unless it is explicitly permitted?

And if you want to be extra knit-picky, the whole section in the DMG about Monsters as Races (p172) is prefaced on p171 with "In contrast to the way the rest of the Dungeon Master’s Guide is structured, this chapter is composed of alternative rules, concepts, and ways of doing things. So, in this chapter, you won’t find variant rules set off in sidebars—the variant rules are actually the meat of the chapter." -- so technically any use of non-PHB races is an alternate rule requiring DM permission. I mention this, not to be annoying, but simply because the OP mentioned "DM fiat", which (even beyond rule 0) is generally required for monstrous PC races.

[Note that I'm not on the boards frequently enough to have a lengthy and effective rules debate.]

[Jeff the Green]

hmm, due to dogs not being able to carry gear when they door, seems vow of poverty pouncer build is the solution.

I think you can, actually. Granted, it's unclear, but it would seem the "affects only the blink dog" only prevents you from bringing along another creature, not what you carry.

Even if this is not the case, a fair DM would probably consider an exception.

[georgie_leech]

RAW has never excluded a PC being the cohort of an NPC.

Although RAI does imply a prohibition.

And then we are at Rule 0 that says the DM can permit Blink Dog PCs

We've always got rule 0 though, and since 3.5 is a permissive rule set (Player: "Can I try to catch the arrow out of the air with a Reflex Save?" DM: "Not without this Feat you can't.") by default, default RAW says no.

[Vaz]

Always wanted to have a Beguiling Beguiler Beguiler.

[CyberThread]

Always wanted to have a Beguiling Beguiler Beguiler.

What is the rha on those suckers

[bekeleven]

What is the rha on those suckers

Beguiler (Race) is actually very nice - +0 LA (Cohort), tiny size, and true seeing constantly. A fun character base for an illusionist. Also, you look absolutely adorable (http://img.4plebs.org/boards/tg/image/1377/02/1377025113615.jpg).

[Gildedragon]

Is beguiling a template, or just an adjective here?

[ericgrau]

As quoted I think the intent is that they are merely inappropriate for players, not imbalanced. They might lack opposable thumbs, lack the ability to use language or otherwise have issues getting along in a civilized world. I don't see why the LA for a (cohort) should be much different from the LA for the PC, so if you can find a way to make it work I say go for it. The only way I could see it abused is if there's some (cohort) that benefits heavily from the extra gear, but I don't know of any such cohort. Usually benefits from gear isn't the deciding factor; civilized-ness is. If anything (cohort)s tend to have a harder time using gear in which case the LA might be too high.

[Jeff the Green]

Beguiler (Race) is actually very nice - +0 LA (Cohort), tiny size, and true seeing constantly. A fun character base for an illusionist. Also, you look absolutely adorable (http://img.4plebs.org/boards/tg/image/1377/02/1377025113615.jpg).

Well, usually. You can get one as a familiar, which means it can become pseudonatural, or gain gain scales, tentacles, and an amorphous form if you take the right prestige classes.

[Thurbane]

By RAW, everyone can have free Paragon (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/monsters/paragonCreature.htm) templates, because no LA entry is mentioned...

[Yogibear41]

Other than maybe maneuvers and that mouth blade special magic ability, I don't see how you could ever make something with no hands and only a single bite attack a strong melee attacker anyway.

Back on topic though, no idea RAW but I don't see why anyone would think a blink dog is too OP to be used as a player race, probably more of a pain in the butt to play one really.


You could quote Shining South Page 60: "some of the creatures presented in this chapter are suitable for characters; such monsters have a level adjustment given in their statistics." that is literally the paragraph before the beguiler entry and its LA +0 (cohort)

[Necroticplague]

The rules for la (cohort) only state that such races would be problematic as a pc, not that they can't be. Additionally, saying they can be problematic as pcs implies they can be pcs in the first place, otherwise they couldn't have problems as pcs.

[Vaz]

Is beguiling a template, or just an adjective here?

Adjectice. But max the right stats, and you become said BBB

[Chronos]

Here's a gestalt build I put together for a blink dog (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=4157520&postcount=143). I did indeed take Vow of Poverty, and got more natural attacks through use of Wildshape. If I were to do it over again, I'd probably also squeeze in a couple of levels of Totemist for Girallon Arms, which would give me a couple more attacks, and which might also be usable as hands.

I wonder if there are any good-aligned canine fey, to justify the Nymph's Kiss feat?

[CyberThread]

Eleven hound from wild

[Ravens_cry]

I'd allow it, because I like funky races. As long as the other players are on-board, I'd allow a Petal or other race as a PC.

[bekeleven]

Here's a gestalt build I put together for a blink dog (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=4157520&postcount=143). I did indeed take Vow of Poverty, and got more natural attacks through use of Wildshape. If I were to do it over again, I'd probably also squeeze in a couple of levels of Totemist for Girallon Arms, which would give me a couple more attacks, and which might also be usable as hands.

I wonder if there are any good-aligned canine fey, to justify the Nymph's Kiss feat?

Why not build a VoP Wild Shape Ranger // Incarnate / Forsaker and triple dip on lack of items? It's pretty much your only excuse to use the forsaker, so I'd jump on it!

Also, petal PC is best PC. I've been working on a petal melee build, but it's hard without reach. I don't want my fairy to be evil or aberrant!

[Ravens_cry]

Why not build a VoP Wild Shape Ranger // Incarnate / Forsaker and triple dip on lack of items? It's pretty much your only excuse to use the forsaker, so I'd jump on it!

Also, petal PC is best PC. I've been working on a petal melee build, but it's hard without reach. I don't want my fairy to be evil or aberrant!
It's technically a house rule, but I'd allow a creature with 0 foot reach to use a longspear or other reach weapon to give them 5 foot reach with that weapon.

[CyberThread]

What is so Damn great about this petal?

[Seffbasilisk]

If you want Pounce, Barbarian is the way to go. Bite attacks are simultaneously all three physical types.

Petals are brilliant because they're tiny, and made of win.

[Necroticplague]

What is so Damn great about this petal?

Tiny, excellent flight speed, excellent stat boosts, only +2 LA, free weapon finesse (synergizing well with +10 DEX). Fey, which is nonhumanoid, but not often targeted specifically by spells.

[bekeleven]

Tiny, excellent flight speed, excellent stat boosts, only +2 LA, free weapon finesse (synergizing well with +10 DEX). Fey, which is nonhumanoid, but not often targeted specifically by spells.

Basically they're tiny pixies, minus invisibility, and -2 LA.

[TuggyNE]

The rules for la (cohort) only state that such races would be problematic as a pc, not that they can't be. Additionally, saying they can be problematic as pcs implies they can be pcs in the first place, otherwise they couldn't have problems as pcs.

That's not how it works. Rather, the MM says that in principle any monster could be a PC (the stats are there, and sufficient to play them), but that many monsters are extremely problematic in such a role … and thus have LA —. "Problematic as a PC" is code for "do not play this".

[Gemini476]

By RAW, everyone can have free Paragon (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/monsters/paragonCreature.htm) templates, because no LA entry is mentioned...

Not really? The ELH lists the ECL of the monsters inside it on page 156. The "Paragon, mind flayer" has an ECL of 26.
Remember, this is two years before Savage Species. LA was not quite a thing yet.

The Mind flayer as presented in 3.5 has an LA of +7 and 8 RHD. Hence we can deduce that the Paragon template is +11 LA.

Remember, the SRD does not by any means contain everything necessary to play a game.

[Ravens_cry]

That's not how it works. Rather, the MM says that in principle any monster could be a PC (the stats are there, and sufficient to play them), but that many monsters are extremely problematic in such a role … and thus have LA —. "Problematic as a PC" is code for "do not play this".
No, it's code for 'Tread carefully and trust your own judgment'. Some games a Petal would be problematic, in others it would be yet another freak for the circus. Even LA -- is potentially workable in a game where everyone was the same race and the challenges are commiserate.

[TuggyNE]

No, it's code for 'Tread carefully and trust your own judgment'. Some games a Petal would be problematic, in others it would be yet another freak for the circus. Even LA -- is potentially workable in a game where everyone was the same race and the challenges are commiserate.

Yes, everyone playing Int — kobold skeletons would certainly be a workable game! All LA — entries are lumped together in the same category of unplayability. So sure, you can use Rule 0 to say "well, all right, this actually does seem playable." But, by the rules, they're all essentially equally difficult to manage. And cohort-only LA appears to be in the same boat, where officially it is just not suitable for a PC. The fact that a DM can override "do not play this" if they really want to, just as they can override alignment restrictions for Warlocks or Druids, does not change the fact that that's what that means.

[ben-zayb]

"Problematic as a PC" is code for "do not play this".
Do we have RAW support for this claim? Perhaps Tippy or Curmudgeon can chime in.

[Ravens_cry]

Yes, everyone playing Int — kobold skeletons would certainly be a workable game! All LA — entries are lumped together in the same category of unplayability. So sure, you can use Rule 0 to say "well, all right, this actually does seem playable." But, by the rules, they're all essentially equally difficult to manage. And cohort-only LA appears to be in the same boat, where officially it is just not suitable for a PC. The fact that a DM can override "do not play this" if they really want to, just as they can override alignment restrictions for Warlocks or Druids, does not change the fact that that's what that means.
It's not Rule 0, it's the rules telling the DM, 'Choose for yourself but be warned, it will likely not work'. That's not the same thing. While bog standard Skeletons might be pretty much impossible to see a reasonable situation where they can be played, an awakened* Skeleton isn't much more powerful than a Necropolitan, and eminently playable in the sense of not disrupting play I'd say, though still a little tricky as they are vulnerable to dispel magic.
*with the Awaken Undead spell from Spell Compendium, among other sources.

[OldTrees1]

It's not Rule 0, it's the rules telling the DM, 'Choose for yourself but be warned, it will likely not work'. That's not the same thing. While bog standard Skeletons might be pretty much impossible to see a reasonable situation where they can be played, an awakened* Skeleton isn't much more powerful than a Necropolitan, and eminently playable in the sense of not disrupting play I'd say, though still a little tricky as they are vulnerable to dispel magic.
*with the Awaken Undead spell from Spell Compendium, among other sources.

Would you please site the source for your overall claim? 3.0 implied otherwise with Savage Species explicitly excluding monsters based off a list of playability requirements.

[Ravens_cry]

Would you please site the source for your overall claim? 3.0 implied otherwise with Savage Species explicitly excluding monsters based off a list of playability requirements.
You said it yourself, it's "in principle" possible to play such a monster, it's just "extremely problematic" in most cases. Most is not all, and I can easily think of ways all but mindless creatures (and even then if not mindless undead or constructs) could be played in a campaign, if not a typical one by any stretch of the imagination.

[OldTrees1]

You said it yourself, it's "in principle" possible to play such a monster, it's just "extremely problematic" in most cases. Most is not all.

I did not say it is " 'in principle' possible". However Rule 0 is the majority of what is " 'in principle' possible".

[CyberThread]

Does this principle accrue interest, because this argument is making me lose my interest.

[Ravens_cry]

I did not say it is " 'in principle' possible". However Rule 0 is the majority of what is " 'in principle' possible".

OK, my bad. Mixed you up with someone else I was talking with.

[OldTrees1]

OK, my bad. Mixed you up with someone else I was talking with.

I kinda thought that might happen when I replied to your conversation without warning. No apology necessary.

[TuggyNE]

@CyberThread: Heh. Sorry.


It's not Rule 0, it's the rules telling the DM, 'Choose for yourself but be warned, it will likely not work'. That's not the same thing. While bog standard Skeletons might be pretty much impossible to see a reasonable situation where they can be played

That's cool. Skeletons are LA —. So are animated objects. So are medusas. You can reasonably say "medusas are much easier to fit into a campaign", and this is probably true, but that doesn't change the fact that the rules make no such distinction: they say "this is not a thing that players should use". Similarly, you could reasonably consider that the price of the ring of regeneration is far too high for its value and set a lower one, allow players to choose a free extra feat at first level, maximize all HD, or whatever else.

The fact that the DM can override LA just like they can override any rule they wish to is, strictly speaking, entirely irrelevant for questions of pure RAW, as this thread seems to be.

[RegalKain]

Yes, everyone playing Int — kobold skeletons would certainly be a workable game! All LA — entries are lumped together in the same category of unplayability. So sure, you can use Rule 0 to say "well, all right, this actually does seem playable." But, by the rules, they're all essentially equally difficult to manage. And cohort-only LA appears to be in the same boat, where officially it is just not suitable for a PC. The fact that a DM can override "do not play this" if they really want to, just as they can override alignment restrictions for Warlocks or Druids, does not change the fact that that's what that means.

I realize the Int- statement was sarcasm, I'd like however, to use it as an example. Of the Dustform Creature template from Sandstorm (Pg 162) That has an LA of +2, and gives you Int of - and Con of -. It is however a template that can be put to....well a rather long list, most of which can be PCs, that means WoTC is saying a PC can have Int-. Maybe that's just my way of reading it, by RAW very, very, very...ok almost nothing in D&D 3.5 makes sense when you really look at it, but it works because the system semi-lets it work. I'd personally say "rule 0" it saying you can play it, that's kinda my take on most things, so long as the DM is comfortable with it, and the rest of your players are, there's no problem with it.

[TuggyNE]

I realize the Int- statement was sarcasm, I'd like however, to use it as an example. Of the Dustform Creature template from Sandstorm (Pg 162) That has an LA of +2, and gives you Int of - and Con of -. It is however a template that can be put to....well a rather long list, most of which can be PCs, that means WoTC is saying a PC can have Int-.

An interesting example. As far as I know, it's one of only two or three Int - playable monsters; the common assumption is that it's either dysfunctional (it is listed as such in the Completely Dysfunctional Handbook (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=14536844&postcount=2), for what that's worth), or an example of specific overriding general. That is, it's playable because it says it is, even though most Int - creatures are not, in fact, playable.

[RegalKain]

An interesting example. As far as I know, it's one of only two or three Int - playable monsters; the common assumption is that it's either dysfunctional (it is listed as such in the Completely Dysfunctional Handbook (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=14536844&postcount=2), for what that's worth), or an example of specific overriding general. That is, it's playable because it says it is, even though most Int - creatures are not, in fact, playable.

Yeah, I was more making a point and example, saying that RAW acts oddly at times, especially when it comes to saying what is and is not a playable race for PCs. Since as a DM I'd disallow Int 1, 2 or - players.

[CyberThread]

hairy spider is another good example

[Thurbane]

Not really? The ELH lists the ECL of the monsters inside it on page 156. The "Paragon, mind flayer" has an ECL of 26.
Remember, this is two years before Savage Species. LA was not quite a thing yet.

The Mind flayer as presented in 3.5 has an LA of +7 and 8 RHD. Hence we can deduce that the Paragon template is +11 LA.

Remember, the SRD does not by any means contain everything necessary to play a game.
That's actually really good to know, thank you.

[OldTrees1]

That's actually really good to know, thank you.

There still is an argument that applies 3.5 template rules to the 3.0 Paragon template in order to invalidate the ECL table in the ELH. However I find the table to be a valid source.