LA Buyoff Without Tracking XP

[AnimeTheCat]

I've seen the Level Adjustment Buyoff method thrown around like candy at a parade all across these and other forums, but as I was reading about this stuff, something caught my attention. How can the same people that swear by level adjustment buyoff (essentially paying the xp difference between a 2nd and 3rd, or other levels) when those same posters/individuals swear by just houserulling XP away?

I understand how it works, the character is just 1 level behind for a +1 LA or 2 levels behind for a +2 LA, but without real XP, those characters will always be behind and won't be able to catch up unless the DM just says "Player C (who is a level behing) take two levels" or "Player C, take a level. Everyone else stay at your current level"... The only thing effected is ECL, but ECL means nothing without XP... It just seems strange to suggest LA buyoff and also suggest getting rid of the currency used to buy off the LA.

[Drelua]

I've seen the Level Adjustment Buyoff method thrown around like candy at a parade all across these and other forums, but as I was reading about this stuff, something caught my attention. How can the same people that swear by level adjustment buyoff (essentially paying the xp difference between a 2nd and 3rd, or other levels) when those same posters/individuals swear by just houserulling XP away?

Because these forums generally assume you're following the rules. Except multiclass XP penalties, that's just silly. It's basically saying "I don't really like this system, but if you're going to use it, I like it better with this optional rule." nothing hypocritical about that.


I understand how it works, the character is just 1 level behind for a +1 LA or 2 levels behind for a +2 LA, but without real XP, those characters will always be behind and won't be able to catch up unless the DM just says "Player C (who is a level behing) take two levels" or "Player C, take a level. Everyone else stay at your current level"... The only thing effected is ECL, but ECL means nothing without XP... It just seems strange to suggest LA buyoff and also suggest getting rid of the currency used to buy off the LA.

If it were me, I'd say if you buy off LA, wait an extra encouter to level. Or maybe wait 2 extra encounters for the next level, and then 1 extra encounter for the level after that, since the XP you lose gets less significant over time. Or just say everyone can have 1 or 2 LA, I've done that before to help make up for a small party. Being half-dragon goes a long way towards alleviating any concerns the fighter might have about the party not having a cleric.

[torrasque666]

My group just says it gets removed at the appropriate levels. This means that sometimes, a character gets two levels at once (the level they'd normally get for the milestone, and the level being bought off)

[Luccan]

If you do milestone leveling, I always assumed it meant you kept track of your LA and when your party leveled, you took one off. Though thinking about it, that wouldn't work very well once you got higher in level. If you're continually 2 or more levels behind, you need a pretty good +LA race to justify it.

[AnimeTheCat]

If you do milestone leveling, I always assumed it meant you kept track of your LA and when your party leveled, you took one off. Though thinking about it, that wouldn't work very well once you got higher in level. If you're continually 2 or more levels behind, you need a pretty good +LA race to justify it.

Right, and if you're getting multiple levels at once, why would you ever play something without a level adjustment.

[EldritchWeaver]

Right, and if you're getting multiple levels at once, why would you ever play something without a level adjustment.

Because wizards like their caster levels?

[AnimeTheCat]

Because wizards like their caster levels?

But you're getting them. With milestones and stuff you may get two at once. And also with LA cutoff in general you don't lose them for long anyway.

[Remuko]

I've seen the Level Adjustment Buyoff method thrown around like candy at a parade all across these and other forums, but as I was reading about this stuff, something caught my attention. How can the same people that swear by level adjustment buyoff (essentially paying the xp difference between a 2nd and 3rd, or other levels) when those same posters/individuals swear by just houserulling XP away?

I understand how it works, the character is just 1 level behind for a +1 LA or 2 levels behind for a +2 LA, but without real XP, those characters will always be behind and won't be able to catch up unless the DM just says "Player C (who is a level behing) take two levels" or "Player C, take a level. Everyone else stay at your current level"... The only thing effected is ECL, but ECL means nothing without XP... It just seems strange to suggest LA buyoff and also suggest getting rid of the currency used to buy off the LA.

I've almost never seen people advocating the removal of xp altogether, especially not people who recommend buyoff -shrugs-

[Goaty14]

But you're getting them. With milestones and stuff you may get two at once. And also with LA cutoff in general you don't lose them for long anyway.

The buyoff would eventually have no effect, but a LA 4/Wiz 1 will be a really sucky wizard compared to a wizard 5.

Sure, they both end up as wizard 20, but the LA one has to slug out lvl 1 casting at ECL 5. Generally taking free LA would be worth it if it doesn't affect your build (i.e, taking 2 LA and assuming it'd be already bought off when the party starts at ECL 10), but really bad if you don't.

[Crake]

The buyoff would eventually have no effect, but a LA 4/Wiz 1 will be a really sucky wizard compared to a wizard 5.

Sure, they both end up as wizard 20, but the LA one has to slug out lvl 1 casting at ECL 5. Generally taking free LA would be worth it if it doesn't affect your build (i.e, taking 2 LA and assuming it'd be already bought off when the party starts at ECL 10), but really bad if you don't.

LA4 can't actually be bought off before level 20. You buy off your first LA at ECL 16, your second at ECL 24, your third at ECL 29 and your last at ECL 31, when you have 30 class levels.

[Fizban]

I've seen the Level Adjustment Buyoff method thrown around like candy at a parade all across these and other forums, but as I was reading about this stuff, something caught my attention. How can the same people that swear by level adjustment buyoff (essentially paying the xp difference between a 2nd and 3rd, or other levels) when those same posters/individuals swear by just houserulling XP away?
I find it rather more problematic that LA Buyoff literally goes against the entire point of LA and thus isn't actually fixing a problem. LA exists because getting certain stuff for free when other characters aren't puts you ahead, so they tried to assign some level adjustments to make up for it. LA Buyoff uses the self-correcting nature of xp to let you remove that penalty and slingshot back up to the same level as the rest of the party. . .

At which point you've got something for free and they don't.

Even if you actually played all the way from the early levels before you started "buying off" that adjustment and thus suffered some actual penalty, it's the same problem as people who claim "oh wizards are better later but fighters are better earlier"- when you reach that higher level, one is getting a bunch of stuff for free, and the other isn't. Wizards shouldn't be flat better than non-wizards (which can be achieved through a variety of methods) and monster characters (or whatever the favorite LA thing is) should not be flat better than non-monsters (which can be achieved by not allowing LA Buyoff). And when you're just starting at higher levels with the LA already "bought off," there's just no cost.

Level adjustment isn't a great rule, but LA buyoff is worse.

How to fix it? The best way to fix giving something to one person for free is to give something to everyone for free, just give everyone the same LA (and access to stuff that's actually equal in power) and either boost the CR or reduce loot accordingly. If you absolutely insist on running "LA buyoff," then every non-LA character should be allowed to buy equivalent bonuses at the same time for the same price.

Edit: to be clear, it's LA 1-2, the amount that people actually recommend using with buyoff, which are the problem. Which are removed at 3rd, or 6th and 9th, while the slingshot rate is somewhere around +1/10 early on to +1/3 after 8th. So basically they're saying that by 12th level, the features of LA 2 should be free- mhm, yeah, Wings of Flying +54k, untyped +4 ability scores +32k, fast healing or gobs of DR +not even available 'k. And that's assuming you only went for one good feature on an LA +2, let alone the borked LA +1's people love. Because LA buyoff is a good rule 'ya see.

[Zombimode]

One Problem with LA is that while you do get stuff, you don't get HD, that is: actual Charakter Levels.

As a quick-and-dirty fix (if I were to be put in a situation where I would have to make this decision - which hasn't really happend yet) is to use RHD to "fill" the LA*.

So if you take a humanoid race with LA +2, you essentially take to levels in "humanoid". Often the delay of actual class Features is enough of a downside.

This won't fix every issue and won't make all races equal. But it makes some races playable.


*It is my suspicion anyway that in some cases the writers where not Aware that LA is in addition to RHD: sometimes you see a race with like 4 RHD AND 4 LA....

[Necroticplague]

One Problem with LA is that while you do get stuff, you don't get HD, that is: actual Charakter Levels.

As a quick-and-dirty fix (if I were to be put in a situation where I would have to make this decision - which hasn't really happend yet) is to use RHD to "fill" the LA*.

So if you take a humanoid race with LA +2, you essentially take to levels in "humanoid". Often the delay of actual class Features is enough of a downside.

This won't fix every issue and won't make all races equal. But it makes some races playable.

How would this work with creatures that have negative LA?

[Zombimode]

How would this work with creatures that have negative LA?

It won't. This affects like one race template out of the entirety of D&D 3.5?

Like I said, if I were to be put in a Situation where a Player wants to use an LA race, this would be my rule of thumb. Adjustments according to the Situation.

It's not meant to be a blind algorithm.

[Necroticplague]

It won't. This affects like one race template out of the entirety of D&D 3.5?

Incarnate Construct, Atropal,Hagunemnon,Hunefer,Ruin swarm,Uvuudaum, off the top of my searching. So at least 6. The fact they're rare doesn't mean they don't exist, so any rule about LA would have to account for them.

[Luccan]

*It is my suspicion anyway that in some cases the writers where not Aware that LA is in addition to RHD: sometimes you see a race with like 4 RHD AND 4 LA....

This is why there have been like, three separate threads about adjusting LA. LA+RHD makes some things unplayable

[Zombimode]

The fact they're rare doesn't mean they don't exist, so any rule about LA would have to account for them.

Only if the cases are both frequent and actually relevant. Lets go over them, shall we?

Incarnate Construct:
Yes, the one case I was talking of. Highly irrelevant for the vast majority of characters. If one of my players would want to use the template, I'm open to discussion. There is no use in bending an extremely general rule-of-thump to accomodate this one outlier.

Atropal:
This guy? (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/monsters/abomination.htm#atropal) Not relevant. Not that it has listed LA anyway.

Hagunemnon:
This guy? (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/monsters/hagunemnon.htm) Not relevant. Not that it has listed LA anyway.

Hunefer:
This guy? (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/monsters/hunefer.htm) Not relevant. Not that it has listed LA anyway.

RuinSwarm:
This guy? (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/monsters/ruinSwarm.htm) Not relevant. Not that it has listed LA anyway.

Uvuudaum:
This guy? (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/monsters/uvuudaum.htm) Not relevant. Not that it has listed LA anyway.


So... still only one case.

[Necroticplague]

There is no use in bending an extremely general rule-of-thump to accomodate this one outlier.
And I see no purpose in making a set of rules if they don't cover all scenarios within their area of relevance.


Atropal:
This guy? (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/monsters/abomination.htm#atropal) Not relevant. Not that it has listed LA anyway.
*Snipping the rest because it's all the same thing*
1.The fact they don't have listed LAs doesn't mean they don't have LAs. That would be like saying a Feral Human doesn't have an LA, since it's calculated, and not listed.
2.Similarly, they fact they aren't gonna be common, doesn't mean they don't exist. If something exists in rules (or even, could exist), other things with should be able to accommodate it. Just because not a lot of characters are martial initiators, doesn't mean the initiation rules need to be left vague.
3.All of those (bar Incarnate Construct) creatures have ECLs in the actual ELH (that table is absent from the d20 SRD, for some reason). ECL=RHD+LA. And some of those have ECL<RHD, which would necessitate LA being negative.

[Telonius]

I find it rather more problematic that LA Buyoff literally goes against the entire point of LA and thus isn't actually fixing a problem. LA exists because getting certain stuff for free when other characters aren't puts you ahead, so they tried to assign some level adjustments to make up for it. LA Buyoff uses the self-correcting nature of xp to let you remove that penalty and slingshot back up to the same level as the rest of the party. . .

At which point you've got something for free and they don't.

Even if you actually played all the way from the early levels before you started "buying off" that adjustment and thus suffered some actual penalty, it's the same problem as people who claim "oh wizards are better later but fighters are better earlier"- when you reach that higher level, one is getting a bunch of stuff for free, and the other isn't. Wizards shouldn't be flat better than non-wizards (which can be achieved through a variety of methods) and monster characters (or whatever the favorite LA thing is) should not be flat better than non-monsters (which can be achieved by not allowing LA Buyoff). And when you're just starting at higher levels with the LA already "bought off," there's just no cost.

Level adjustment isn't a great rule, but LA buyoff is worse.

How to fix it? The best way to fix giving something to one person for free is to give something to everyone for free, just give everyone the same LA (and access to stuff that's actually equal in power) and either boost the CR or reduce loot accordingly. If you absolutely insist on running "LA buyoff," then every non-LA character should be allowed to buy equivalent bonuses at the same time for the same price.

Edit: to be clear, it's LA 1-2, the amount that people actually recommend using with buyoff, which are the problem. Which are removed at 3rd, or 6th and 9th, while the slingshot rate is somewhere around +1/10 early on to +1/3 after 8th. So basically they're saying that by 12th level, the features of LA 2 should be free- mhm, yeah, Wings of Flying +54k, untyped +4 ability scores +32k, fast healing or gobs of DR +not even available 'k. And that's assuming you only went for one good feature on an LA +2, let alone the borked LA +1's people love. Because LA buyoff is a good rule 'ya see.

Personally I see a couple of problems being made worse by each other's existence. First problem is (as people have just mentioned) the game can horribly over-value how much Level Adjustment a particular group of abilities is worth. This is especially problematic if LA is combined with RHD. Second, there are a few races and templates that can horribly under-value how much a particular set of abilities is worth. This leads to a wide variation in power within a +X Level Adjustment. A Half-Minotaur Orc is just not equivalent to a Hobgoblin, for example.

I think LA buyoff is an attempt to kind of fix the second issue, but it doesn't really touch the first. The point of LA buyoff is to make an unusual choice of race somewhat more playable. Outside of those few well-known outliers, LA is a big enough barrier that most people won't want to play a creature that has it. Taking the Hobgoblin example again, if buyoff is not available, it's very rare to see somebody play one. The mechanical cost is just too high. So if the goal is to encourage players to play something other then yet another flavor of Elf, LA Buyoff does its job. I don't think it's exactly getting something for nothing; the cost is to be behind in level for a while. It's a tacit recognition that the designers screwed up the baseline, and that an extra +2 to a stat isn't worth quite as much as being behind in level for the whole career.

Unfortunately, while it does raise the floor, it also raises the ceiling. It doesn't address the issue of the very powerful templates and creatures, who also get their goodies at a reduced cost. If I were DMming a campaign that had LA buyoff, I'd probably want to take the big offenders and either increase their LA to an appropriate level, or nerf what the template actually does. We've had over a decade to ferret out which templates are best; we know which ones they are and why they're so much better than the others, so the work is half done already. But it's still a cobbled-together solution.

In the campaign I'm currently playing, the DM has kind of split the difference on it. Everyone can play a +1 LA race at no charge. If you select a race that's normally LA +0, you get +2 to a stat of your choice. 2 of the 5 PCs took level adjusted races; Feytouched and Draconic Human.

[Troacctid]

I always run games with milestone leveling instead of xp. All xp costs are replaced with gp costs at an exchange rate of 1 xp = 5 gp. That's how I'd handle LA buyoff: make it cost money instead.

[Luccan]

I always run games with milestone leveling instead of xp. All xp costs are replaced with gp costs at an exchange rate of 1 xp = 5 gp. That's how I'd handle LA buyoff: make it cost money instead.

Genuine question: How does that work in-game? They just, lose a bunch of money one day? Offer it to the gods? Do Ogres have to get special training to level properly?

[martixy]

Since the game is expected to be played with XP, and you are doing away with that, I won't even try to quote rules for this. Others have already done so.

In my game I have the same situation. I just set it 1LA per 4 levels, up to half(like PF does it), rounded up, automatically so nobody has to bother with major bookkeeping. 2 of my players have LA+1 templates, and we've already passed the first(and for them last) round of buyoff, and before and after they worked perfectly well in the party - nobody was under-powered or anything, and they worked pretty well with the no-LA full caster in the party. Your mileage may vary depending on template/class composition. Some templates hopeless and in dire need of LA reduction(Vampire comes to mind).

I feel like a good template should stack up well to a tier 3 class, maybe even tier 2.

[Zanos]

I've almost never seen people advocating the removal of xp altogether, especially not people who recommend buyoff -shrugs-
I see people advocate not using XP relatively frequently, but I don't maintain a spreadsheet of people's opinions so I don't remember if it's the same people endorsing buyoff.

[AnimeTheCat]

Genuine question: How does that work in-game? They just, lose a bunch of money one day? Offer it to the gods? Do Ogres have to get special training to level properly?

I would imagine that's how much it costs to pay someone to train you in your class level or something of that nature. However, I didn't post that response so I can't speak to their answer, just my initial thoughts.


Since the game is expected to be played with XP, and you are doing away with that, I won't even try to quote rules for this. Others have already done so.

In my game I have the same situation. I just set it 1LA per 4 levels, up to half(like PF does it), rounded up, automatically so nobody has to bother with major bookkeeping. 2 of my players have LA+1 templates, and we've already passed the first(and for them last) round of buyoff, and before and after they worked perfectly well in the party - nobody was under-powered or anything, and they worked pretty well with the no-LA full caster in the party. Your mileage may vary depending on template/class composition. Some templates hopeless and in dire need of LA reduction(Vampire comes to mind).

I feel like a good template should stack up well to a tier 3 class, maybe even tier 2.

I like using XP as it's written personally. If the party is gaining XP too quickly I reduce the CR of the monsters so they get less, but the monsters have the action economy advantage. As such, I know how level adjustment buyoff works. I was wondering how people that advocate for no XP can also advocate for LA buyoff when the alternate system relies on XP.

Ultimately, I don't mind +1 or +2 LA templates/races as long as the player knows what they're doing, but that's because I use XP.

[Fizban]

It's a tacit recognition that the designers screwed up the baseline, and that an extra +2 to a stat isn't worth quite as much as being behind in level for the whole career.
Indeed- I just find it pretty hilarious how you can convert most of the major abilities people want on LA races into gp and get the real granular picture of how many free "build points" they're getting. +2 untyped stat bonus over an LA 0 race is still 4,000 free gp until you've got a +2 item, then 8,000 after that. Which is a pretty massive fraction of WBL for most of the game*, and even at endgame its free money. One could liken the concept to hoarding cash rather than using consumables: eventually you've got a fixed amount of bonus power accrued that you get to keep forever, except instead of using fewer consumables to get something later, you get it all now in exchange for a mild level delay.

In the campaign I'm currently playing, the DM has kind of split the difference on it. Everyone can play a +1 LA race at no charge. If you select a race that's normally LA +0, you get +2 to a stat of your choice. 2 of the 5 PCs took level adjusted races; Feytouched and Draconic Human.
I'd still be giving out bit more- Draconic is all upside with +6 in overall stats and +1 NA on top of a normal race, while Feytouched has full immunity to mind-affecting. Even stacking a normal race up to a +4 is hard pressed to match that value. Of course giving everyone else build-a-race freebies when the LA guys had to pick pre-printed races will probably make the LA guys sour.

*Even with only a single extra +2 bought off at 3rd, you're down to no cost around 6th. WBL at 6th is 13,000, and even up to 9th that 8k is comparable to having saved your entire consumable budget since 1st level, or more than a 10% flat increase between 11th and 12th. Or, at high enough levels that +2 might actually look pretty small, its still the price of two 9th level scrolls. And most LA +1 templates give more than a single +2- its only the LA +1 races that keep the cost close enough for the comparison, since their bonuses don't stack with an LA 0 race.


As such, I know how level adjustment buyoff works. I was wondering how people that advocate for no XP can also advocate for LA buyoff when the alternate system relies on XP.
Focusing on the precise topic, I haven't seen anyone recommend both either. But there is a pretty stunning amount of people who don't really know precisely how xp and CR and EL and LA and the general game balance work. It's all part of the same thing: I'm pretty sure most people who automatically recommend LA buyoff (because LA is just automatically unplayable) also demand maximum casting levels, purging of "low-tier" classes, and char-op'd monsters from the DM to compensate. Which is all just free power increases on both sides of the equation with the hope that the DM not only gets the monster op level right for combat but that the treasure and xp will just magically line up after all those changes- or brute force fixing it with periodic treasure or xp dumps to force things back into alignment. Not that it's ever going to work perfectly without DM input (the system demands DM input), but there's a very strong undercurrent of just wanting more, and LA buyoff masquerades perfectly as a "balanced fix" while actually being free stuff.

Even when suggested as a fix for an underpowered character, giving them an LA race and then buying it off, still a fancier way of giving them free stuff while pretending you're not. But not recognizing this (in any situation) means that you can end up with double-dipping on free things the DM is aware are free, and free things they don't realize were free.

[martixy]

I like using XP as it's written personally. If the party is gaining XP too quickly I reduce the CR of the monsters so they get less, but the monsters have the action economy advantage. As such, I know how level adjustment buyoff works. I was wondering how people that advocate for no XP can also advocate for LA buyoff when the alternate system relies on XP.

Ultimately, I don't mind +1 or +2 LA templates/races as long as the player knows what they're doing, but that's because I use XP.

As I said the experienceₕₑₕ ₕₑₕ thus far has been positive.
I just took a play from PF's book - http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/bestiary/monstersAsPCs.html
It doesn't factor in XP in the system, so perfectly usable. The one caveat with their "buyoff" as written is that you can't buyoff LA+1, which is why for my game I specifically round UP.

Another, tangentially relevant thing, which I do, is that allowing 1-2 free LA is beneficial to a more diverse game, since it provides an incentive to use something other than the trite, old PHB races.

P.S. Fizban has a point. In the game I run now, even though playing with experienced players, I had to explain the precise mechanics of LA, RHD and ECL so, so many times during character creation, and again when the time for buyoff came. It's not even that hard to understand... just obscure I guess.

[VisitingDaGulag]

Besides the fact that the ECL formula results in most races being unbalanced (too weak to be playable), throwing out XP is a very bad idea. Casters make items and cast costly spells. It's almost as messed up as throwing out WBL.

If the DM has a habit of telling the players "All of you should be up to x level after saving the princess," it's the player's job to deduct his running tally of the Psy Refs or LA buyoff and other things he used his XP on that holds him back a bit on XP. It's usually not enough to be down more than one level unless the player is really spending that XP, which is a good thing. XP is a great resource.