LA Buyoff Question - HELP! [Archive] - Wizards Community

LA Buyoff Question - HELP! [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Tweedledope
10-27-05, 03:23 PM Okay, I'm confused. I'm wanting to start playing a Pixie soon but, the +4 LA is killer. I'm confused on how the LA buyoff works for this high of a LA. For instance, I can qualify to reduce my LA to +3 at level 12.

Well, now I have a +3 LA which was elligible for reduction at levels 9, 15 and at 18. So, can I further spend XP to reduce it to +1 (By spending XP as if I was 9th level and then again as if I was 15th level) or do I stay at a +3 LA until I reach level 18 (which is the last reduction point for a +3 LA).

OR, do I still continue on as if I had a +4 LA meaning I'm only able to reduce it to a +3 at 12th level and then I'm stuck.

I'm VERY confused on how these rules work.

-=Tweedledope=-
sfurtwangler
10-27-05, 03:40 PM Level buyoff is only valid if your DM is using that option from UA... as a player, you can only buy off your level adjustments if your DM agrees to adopt that rule for his campaign.

I just thought you might saev yourself the headache if you havn't already run it past him. That said, assuming he does allow it... you could ask him how those rules work. :-)

I don't have my book in front of me, but reading your post, now I am confused as to how they work as well. I think with a +4 LA, you can begin to buy them off at 12th level, and can pay them all off then, or something. Again, I'm not real certain about the rule (someone else might post who is), because I';ve never played under a DM who would allow it.
TúrintheMormegil
10-27-05, 04:02 PM If you start out with LA+1, you can get rid of it at lv 3 (assuming, like sfurtwangler said, your DM approves).
If you start with LA+2 you drop to LA+1 at level 6 and get rid of it at lv 9.
An LA+3 race can reduce at lv 9, again at 15, getting rid of the LA completely at lv 18.
An LA+4 character reduces by one at level 12, then (if epic is allowed) at 21, 27 en 30.

Calculation method: first buyoff is at your total LA times 3, second is at your first buyoff level + your new total LA times 3, third is at your second buyoff level + your new total LA times 3, etc...
Tweedledope
10-27-05, 09:51 PM Wow...so the Pixie sucks then...LA is the worst thing ever. >_>

Anyone know how this would effect a character who uses Savage Progressions?
sfurtwangler
10-28-05, 08:44 AM Actually, LA is a balancing factor. Without it, your pixie would have tons of cool at-will magical powers that the rest of the group doesn't have - and be equal in all other ways.

Savage progressions (although they keep reprinting new ones - stupid WotC) are sort of a thing of 3.0. Perosnally, I don't let my players use those either... but I assume that with the level-buyoff stuff, you could buy it back just like normal.

Also, like normal, when figuring out what level you can buy things off at, you use your monster hit dice and your class levels to determine your level (not your ECL)... at least, I think that's how it works.. .again, don't have my book in front of me, I could be wrong.

What I think this means, though, is that you're not gaining anything from having a savage progression, you just get to enter play sooner (at a lower level) than if you came in as a full-grown monster.
gbnogkfs
10-28-05, 12:20 PM Savage progressions (although they keep reprinting new ones - stupid WotC) are sort of a thing of 3.0. Perosnally, I don't let my players use those either... but I assume that with the level-buyoff stuff, you could buy it back just like normal.

there is nothing in 3.5 clashing with savage progression.
it's good now and then new sp are presented.

Also, like normal, when figuring out what level you can buy things off at, you use your monster hit dice and your class levels to determine your level (not your ECL)... at least, I think that's how it works.. .again, don't have my book in front of me, I could be wrong.

no: only class levels count
sfurtwangler
10-28-05, 12:45 PM Ah, sucky. :-)

Yeah, there is nothign in 3.5 that classes with savage progressions except that it does say somewhere in the 3.5 core that you have to pay the hwoel thing at once or yo ucan't do it (obviously because they didnt' want to print progressions for everything)... but I don't see why you couldn't addapt old progressions assuming hte monsters, and their LAs havn't changed between editions (which is the case for some).

Liber Mortis, and The PLanar Handbook both present some savage progressions, so I'd say the concept is still valid in 3.0, even if htey havnt' remade savage species, or released a 3.5 update for it.
VanRiper
10-28-05, 12:53 PM Yeah, Savage Species is still valid (as far as I know), but you have to watch what creatures you play. For instance, the DR is totally different and several spell-like abilities have changed. So, take a look at SS and then look at what 3.5 book you can find that creature in to see what has changed.
sfurtwangler
10-28-05, 01:26 PM Techniqually, everything in 3.0 is usable if your DM agrees, but by RAW, its been superceeded by the reprinted core rules (which say you can't do that). Also, enough of the savage-species stuff was broken (resulted in overpowered characters) in 3.0 that I didn't use it then, so I don't use it now, either. If your DM is happy with it, I say go for it, but you still end up paying off the LA cost over time - so I don't think it solves the problem that the original poster addressed.
Shmatt
10-28-05, 01:31 PM Actually, LA is a balancing factor. Without it, your pixie would have tons of cool at-will magical powers that the rest of the group doesn't have - and be equal in all other ways.

In theory it is a balancing factor, in practice it fails..
a vampire for example, make an PC vamp with 5 levels of w/e you want, put it up against an equal ECL PC human, even with the same levels/items...
who will win? human
lower level of human, and you will see he will keep winning until he is about 3-4 levels below

LA in many cases loses all potential as well, considering the many melee LA's will result in lower saves, and base attack (although occasionally at a higher str bonus)
spellcasting LA's ruin it all completely. you drop a spellcaster by say 2-3 levels, and suddenly he has no equal-level spells to fight enemies, and the most powerful he DOES have for quick killing wont affect the common enemy, which will by then have more HD....

LA sucks, removing all LA and replacing it with racial HD or some other balancer will be more effective, either that or make it more worthwhile with progressive special abilities (so the things which jacked up LA in the first place still mean something) and survivability still options
sfurtwangler
10-28-05, 01:43 PM I would agree iwth your statements there.

In practice, LAs are poor indicators, and a lot of factors (especially min/maxing) makes them seem too high or low.

Still, I think if you got high level, and completely removed your LA... you still have a handful of abiltiies, which, while not game breaking, the other PCs of your level do not have... a pixie's perminant invisibility, for example... If given the choice between playing a level 20 human rogue, or a level 20 pixie rogue, most players would gladly be perminanty invisible, and a race which is naturally good at roguery. Of course, racial hit dice are sort of like level-hits... so maybe it'd work out.
Cathon
10-28-05, 02:51 PM +4 LA is really quite reasonable for a race that is permanently invisible and flies. The fact that you are always striking from invisibility and tiny should make up for the lack of base attack, and if you are a rogue, you will do your damage from sneak attack rather than base weapon damage. Get yourself some extradimensional storage space and boost your saves (to guard against area attack spells), and hit points and you'll be killer. Pixies aren't too good for anything except rogues and spell casters (and better as rogues than spellcasters because LA hurts primary spellcasters badly), but LA is based off of the best possible class, not the worst.
King_Bulba
10-28-05, 04:22 PM My DM allows LA reduction and it has never caused an issue for anyone. If anything my charicters are underpowered! I also dont try to make an optimized gods so maybe thats why my group does it so well. It allows us to play races that normally you don't play because LA screws up spellcasting, saves and BAB.

At higher levels LA is more of a burden and lowers your str compaired to class levels, theoretically this is why you can buy off LA. At some point your LA isnt worth a class level and so you can buy it off at that point. The writers of UA say for a LA +1 it generally loses its effectiveness over non LA creatures at level 3, now if that isnt true have your DM change it. At level 20 though any creature with LA is significantly weaker than one without any, and if your DM doesn't agree then he is in denial but your stuck since he makes the rules.

Tweedledope, the Pixie is one thing that might be worth the LA of +4. Be a rogue and every attack is a SA aslong as it's not undead and such. Also the progression TúrintheMormegil says looks right. "An LA+4 character reduces by one at level 12, then (if epic is allowed) at 21, 27 en 30." Even though you have reduced your LA at 12 you still arent eligable to reduce again untill level 21.

Well GL getting your DM to allow it, im suprised at how many people don't allow LA buyoff.
gbnogkfs
10-29-05, 10:20 AM Also, enough of the savage-species stuff was broken (resulted in overpowered characters) in 3.0 that I didn't use it then, so I don't use it now, either.

Isn't that a problem of determining right LAs for the monsters and not a fault of the Savage progressions per se?
sfurtwangler
10-29-05, 04:28 PM Isn't that a problem of determining right LAs for the monsters and not a fault of the Savage progressions per se?

Nah, I was referring to a lot of the other stuff in the book, too (feats, spells, etc). But, the progressions were kind of not-quite-right either. Even mid-progression, they just didn't seem right.

But I've always hated the idea of players playing "baby" monsters (Not sure this was actually in the book, but something like "medium" sized ogres, for example, that grow up to "large" after a few adventures).. .so maybe I'm just biased. :-D

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Tweedledope 10-27-05, 03:23 PM	Okay, I'm confused. I'm wanting to start playing a Pixie soon but, the +4 LA is killer. I'm confused on how the LA buyoff works for this high of a LA. For instance, I can qualify to reduce my LA to +3 at level 12. Well, now I have a +3 LA which was elligible for reduction at levels 9, 15 and at 18. So, can I further spend XP to reduce it to +1 (By spending XP as if I was 9th level and then again as if I was 15th level) or do I stay at a +3 LA until I reach level 18 (which is the last reduction point for a +3 LA). OR, do I still continue on as if I had a +4 LA meaning I'm only able to reduce it to a +3 at 12th level and then I'm stuck. I'm VERY confused on how these rules work. -=Tweedledope=-
sfurtwangler 10-27-05, 03:40 PM	Level buyoff is only valid if your DM is using that option from UA... as a player, you can only buy off your level adjustments if your DM agrees to adopt that rule for his campaign. I just thought you might saev yourself the headache if you havn't already run it past him. That said, assuming he does allow it... you could ask him how those rules work. :-) I don't have my book in front of me, but reading your post, now I am confused as to how they work as well. I think with a +4 LA, you can begin to buy them off at 12th level, and can pay them all off then, or something. Again, I'm not real certain about the rule (someone else might post who is), because I';ve never played under a DM who would allow it.
TúrintheMormegil 10-27-05, 04:02 PM	If you start out with LA+1, you can get rid of it at lv 3 (assuming, like sfurtwangler said, your DM approves). If you start with LA+2 you drop to LA+1 at level 6 and get rid of it at lv 9. An LA+3 race can reduce at lv 9, again at 15, getting rid of the LA completely at lv 18. An LA+4 character reduces by one at level 12, then (if epic is allowed) at 21, 27 en 30. Calculation method: first buyoff is at your total LA times 3, second is at your first buyoff level + your new total LA times 3, third is at your second buyoff level + your new total LA times 3, etc...
Tweedledope 10-27-05, 09:51 PM	Wow...so the Pixie sucks then...LA is the worst thing ever. >_> Anyone know how this would effect a character who uses Savage Progressions?
sfurtwangler 10-28-05, 08:44 AM	Actually, LA is a balancing factor. Without it, your pixie would have tons of cool at-will magical powers that the rest of the group doesn't have - and be equal in all other ways. Savage progressions (although they keep reprinting new ones - stupid WotC) are sort of a thing of 3.0. Perosnally, I don't let my players use those either... but I assume that with the level-buyoff stuff, you could buy it back just like normal. Also, like normal, when figuring out what level you can buy things off at, you use your monster hit dice and your class levels to determine your level (not your ECL)... at least, I think that's how it works.. .again, don't have my book in front of me, I could be wrong. What I think this means, though, is that you're not gaining anything from having a savage progression, you just get to enter play sooner (at a lower level) than if you came in as a full-grown monster.
gbnogkfs 10-28-05, 12:20 PM	Savage progressions (although they keep reprinting new ones - stupid WotC) are sort of a thing of 3.0. Perosnally, I don't let my players use those either... but I assume that with the level-buyoff stuff, you could buy it back just like normal. there is nothing in 3.5 clashing with savage progression. it's good now and then new sp are presented. Also, like normal, when figuring out what level you can buy things off at, you use your monster hit dice and your class levels to determine your level (not your ECL)... at least, I think that's how it works.. .again, don't have my book in front of me, I could be wrong. no: only class levels count
sfurtwangler 10-28-05, 12:45 PM	Ah, sucky. :-) Yeah, there is nothign in 3.5 that classes with savage progressions except that it does say somewhere in the 3.5 core that you have to pay the hwoel thing at once or yo ucan't do it (obviously because they didnt' want to print progressions for everything)... but I don't see why you couldn't addapt old progressions assuming hte monsters, and their LAs havn't changed between editions (which is the case for some). Liber Mortis, and The PLanar Handbook both present some savage progressions, so I'd say the concept is still valid in 3.0, even if htey havnt' remade savage species, or released a 3.5 update for it.
VanRiper 10-28-05, 12:53 PM	Yeah, Savage Species is still valid (as far as I know), but you have to watch what creatures you play. For instance, the DR is totally different and several spell-like abilities have changed. So, take a look at SS and then look at what 3.5 book you can find that creature in to see what has changed.
sfurtwangler 10-28-05, 01:26 PM	Techniqually, everything in 3.0 is usable if your DM agrees, but by RAW, its been superceeded by the reprinted core rules (which say you can't do that). Also, enough of the savage-species stuff was broken (resulted in overpowered characters) in 3.0 that I didn't use it then, so I don't use it now, either. If your DM is happy with it, I say go for it, but you still end up paying off the LA cost over time - so I don't think it solves the problem that the original poster addressed.
Shmatt 10-28-05, 01:31 PM	Actually, LA is a balancing factor. Without it, your pixie would have tons of cool at-will magical powers that the rest of the group doesn't have - and be equal in all other ways. In theory it is a balancing factor, in practice it fails.. a vampire for example, make an PC vamp with 5 levels of w/e you want, put it up against an equal ECL PC human, even with the same levels/items... who will win? human lower level of human, and you will see he will keep winning until he is about 3-4 levels below LA in many cases loses all potential as well, considering the many melee LA's will result in lower saves, and base attack (although occasionally at a higher str bonus) spellcasting LA's ruin it all completely. you drop a spellcaster by say 2-3 levels, and suddenly he has no equal-level spells to fight enemies, and the most powerful he DOES have for quick killing wont affect the common enemy, which will by then have more HD.... LA sucks, removing all LA and replacing it with racial HD or some other balancer will be more effective, either that or make it more worthwhile with progressive special abilities (so the things which jacked up LA in the first place still mean something) and survivability still options
sfurtwangler 10-28-05, 01:43 PM	I would agree iwth your statements there. In practice, LAs are poor indicators, and a lot of factors (especially min/maxing) makes them seem too high or low. Still, I think if you got high level, and completely removed your LA... you still have a handful of abiltiies, which, while not game breaking, the other PCs of your level do not have... a pixie's perminant invisibility, for example... If given the choice between playing a level 20 human rogue, or a level 20 pixie rogue, most players would gladly be perminanty invisible, and a race which is naturally good at roguery. Of course, racial hit dice are sort of like level-hits... so maybe it'd work out.
Cathon 10-28-05, 02:51 PM	+4 LA is really quite reasonable for a race that is permanently invisible and flies. The fact that you are always striking from invisibility and tiny should make up for the lack of base attack, and if you are a rogue, you will do your damage from sneak attack rather than base weapon damage. Get yourself some extradimensional storage space and boost your saves (to guard against area attack spells), and hit points and you'll be killer. Pixies aren't too good for anything except rogues and spell casters (and better as rogues than spellcasters because LA hurts primary spellcasters badly), but LA is based off of the best possible class, not the worst.
King_Bulba 10-28-05, 04:22 PM	My DM allows LA reduction and it has never caused an issue for anyone. If anything my charicters are underpowered! I also dont try to make an optimized gods so maybe thats why my group does it so well. It allows us to play races that normally you don't play because LA screws up spellcasting, saves and BAB. At higher levels LA is more of a burden and lowers your str compaired to class levels, theoretically this is why you can buy off LA. At some point your LA isnt worth a class level and so you can buy it off at that point. The writers of UA say for a LA +1 it generally loses its effectiveness over non LA creatures at level 3, now if that isnt true have your DM change it. At level 20 though any creature with LA is significantly weaker than one without any, and if your DM doesn't agree then he is in denial but your stuck since he makes the rules. Tweedledope, the Pixie is one thing that might be worth the LA of +4. Be a rogue and every attack is a SA aslong as it's not undead and such. Also the progression TúrintheMormegil says looks right. "An LA+4 character reduces by one at level 12, then (if epic is allowed) at 21, 27 en 30." Even though you have reduced your LA at 12 you still arent eligable to reduce again untill level 21. Well GL getting your DM to allow it, im suprised at how many people don't allow LA buyoff.
gbnogkfs 10-29-05, 10:20 AM	Also, enough of the savage-species stuff was broken (resulted in overpowered characters) in 3.0 that I didn't use it then, so I don't use it now, either. Isn't that a problem of determining right LAs for the monsters and not a fault of the Savage progressions per se?
sfurtwangler 10-29-05, 04:28 PM	Isn't that a problem of determining right LAs for the monsters and not a fault of the Savage progressions per se? Nah, I was referring to a lot of the other stuff in the book, too (feats, spells, etc). But, the progressions were kind of not-quite-right either. Even mid-progression, they just didn't seem right. But I've always hated the idea of players playing "baby" monsters (Not sure this was actually in the book, but something like "medium" sized ogres, for example, that grow up to "large" after a few adventures).. .so maybe I'm just biased. :-D