PDA

View Full Version : Races and templates with LA +0 LA - and no LA noted


Trandir
2019-08-19, 05:18 PM
What is the difference between those 3?

After I get a good answer this thread will have served his purpose
PhoenixPhyre
2019-08-19, 05:28 PM
What is the difference between those 3?

After I get a good answer this thread will have served his purpose

LA +0: This race is balanced against other "core" races without further adjustment.
LA - : This race is not intended for player use. Requires significant DM adjudication and homebrewery to make usable.
No LA listed: Error?

I'm not sure on the last one.
Thurbane
2019-08-19, 05:47 PM
LA not listed tends to be a 3.0 thing.

RAW is debated on whether this is the same as LA +0 or not.

A lot of 3.0 creatures and templates that had no LA listed were allocated an LA when they got reprinted or errata'd to 3.5.
Trandir
2019-08-20, 06:33 AM
No LA listed: Error?

I'm not sure on the last one.
This is mostly for the templates. Some have no LA listed so I assume that they are a DM tool since most of them are quite strong
Inevitability
2019-08-20, 08:06 AM
LA not listed tends to be a 3.0 thing.

RAW is debated on whether this is the same as LA +0 or not.

A lot of 3.0 creatures and templates that had no LA listed were allocated an LA when they got reprinted or errata'd to 3.5.

By strict RAW, 'no LA noted' means 'not playable' when you're talking about a creature (because, well, there isn't a LA) but means '+0 LA' when you're talking about a template (because any value not referred to by the template remains unchanged).

In practice, this leads to silliness such as +0 LA Chosen of Bane, so any DM word their salt should either rule that it counts as 'LA: —' or as a more balanced value.
Thurbane
2019-08-20, 04:44 PM
By strict RAW, 'no LA noted' means 'not playable' when you're talking about a creature (because, well, there isn't a LA) but means '+0 LA' when you're talking about a template (because any value not referred to by the template remains unchanged).

In practice, this leads to silliness such as +0 LA Chosen of Bane, so any DM word their salt should either rule that it counts as 'LA: —' or as a more balanced value.

Indeed. IMHO, it's always a DM call, and common sense should prevail.

I found a 3.5 example yesterday, by accident: Madborn (Five Nations p.123) - listed as CR +1, but no LA listed (well, I guess you can extrapolate LA — from the sample stat block, but still doesn't get a mention in the main body text of applying the template).

Make me wonder if you could stack Madborn and Tainted Raver on the same creature, for perpetual double-rage...