Level Buyoff

Like many things from Unearthed Arcana, my initial and present reaction to 'level adjustment buyoff' was that it was horribly designed with little thought.

Non-goals of this question:
1. Whether LA races are 'fair' or 'balanced' in general and need a break.
2. The issue that it's worse for casters, generally.
3. High-optimization 'anything worse than the best possible build is fine' answers ("a full-caster-level- wizard/cleric/druid is better than anything else anyway..") - this is a question fr a more 'general' and not high-opt/Tier-1-uber-alles/Git/PvP setting
4. Justifying LA Buyoff by finding other things with similar problems (item crafting and Permanency/Wish XP has an issue similar to point 1. below - XP catchup by being lower level). I'm not trying to fix all of 3.5.

Goal of this question:
Do you have a better way to design a workaround for 'unfair' level adjustments that gets around the issues I cite below (or perhaps explanations of why they are not actually issues)?

1. Lower level characters get exponentially more XP for a given encounter (doubled for 2 levels down, 1/2 to 1/3 more for being one level down). So they catch up, and the racial features become 'free'. In a short term campaign, LA buyoff is worse than LA, in the long term, it's better - so it all depends on campaign length, rather than being consistent. If you have LA +2, you're behind by 1, then briefly behind by 2 at the moment you buyoff and everyone else levels, then you catch up. Surely this is bad design - various character development paths are ideally balanced across progression, yes?

2. Similarly, how it works if you start in a high level campaign seems weird or differently balanced. If you can start a high level campaign being only 3000 XP down for a LA +1, you'll catch that up much more quickly than if you had to slog through it going up from 1.What's the right way to do buyoff when starting at high levels? Do you start with the LA and pre any buyoff? Post-buyoff and 3000 XP short? Or post-buyoff and short by the amount of XP it would take if you did it at that level? (And can you buy off LA +1 at a level later than 3rd.)

3. It treats two LA +1 sources different than a LA +2 source potentially, and since the former treatment is better - 3rd and 6th rather than 6th and 9th - everyone who can will go for the former, using the drow racial class if possible, for example. Or does your second LA +1 have to be bought off at 9 rather than 6th?

4. The usual justification is 'level adjustment becomes eclipsed by class features and not worth it at high levels'. But everyone also says it's hardest to stomach at low levels, when it makes the largest proportional hit to your HP. A race with a Con bonus may have lower HP at low levels, but will eventually pass at high levels. Likewise Int and total skill points. So is LA most tolerable at midlevels? Sure, a fixed spell-like ability may become less useful, and things like spell resistance become more easily affordable from items (SR is priced at 10,000 gp per point above 12, and wealth by level is geometric). But why is +Str strength any more 'eclipsed' than your first point of BAB? Why is it sensible to be able to buy off a LA +1 template but not be able to buy off a 1 level dip of some class?

1. This is true for a character with +1 LA or +2 LA (which is the majority of characters who actually use this feature), but not for all characters.

2. Depends on the DM. I agree that allowing a level 15 character to buyoff a +2 LA with 18000 xp would be ridiculous. In that case, I would reccomend that a character could buyoff the LA, but at the cost of their current ECL being used.

3. I was under the impression that having two sources which give a character +1 LA makes a +2 LA character. I don't see anything in UA's Reduced LA section that contradicts this.

4. This is a very good point. Level Adjustments are really a bad idea to use in the first place. Unless you're using one of a handful of very good +1 LA templates or races, then the cost is rarely worth it. However, if you do pick from one of those great templates or races (Feral, Mineral Warrior, Half-Ogre, etc.) then the cost at low-levels will be easily tolerable, while the cost at a higher level (say 15+) would be terrible.

~

You are right in that the LA Buyoff system is broken, but I think that stems from the fact that the LA system was never supposed to be very functional in the first place. It seems like it was designed as an intentional, "Don't pick this race!" sign that later mutated into some viable builds for lower levels.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HunterOfJello

1. This is true for a character with +1 LA or +2 LA (which is the majority of characters who actually use this feature), but not for all characters.

---

It's true for all LAs, it just takes much longer to kick in for higher (and since most LAs people use are 1 or 2, that still makes it problematic).

Quote:

---

2. Depends on the DM. I agree that allowing a level 15 character to buyoff a +2 LA with 18000 xp would be ridiculous. In that case, I would reccomend that a character could buyoff the LA, but at the cost of their current ECL being used.

---

That'd only increase the XP cost by a few thousand. It doesn't change the structural problems .

Quote:

---

3. I was under the impression that having two sources which give a character +1 LA makes a +2 LA character. I don't see anything in UA's Reduced LA section that contradicts this.

---

But what about acquired templates? Suppose you buyoff your first LA, then later on you take an acquired template. Can you buy it off at 6? 9? 3 levels after whenever you took it?

Quote:

---

4. This is a very good point. Level Adjustments are really a bad idea to use in the first place. Unless you're using one of a handful of very good +1 LA templates or races, then the cost is rarely worth it. However, if you do pick from one of those great templates or races (Feral, Mineral Warrior, Half-Ogre, etc.) then the cost at low-levels will be easily tolerable, while the cost at a higher level (say 15+) would be terrible.

---

As I said, I'm not so much interested in whether LA races in general are under-or-overpowered. I recognize most are probably under-, esp for spellcasters. But since it becomes *free* in the long run...

Your point number 1 is explicitly addressed in UA. The relative value of racial features goes down as the party levels up, and the XP "bonus" for being lower level than the rest of the party was figured in when they wrote the LA buyoff rules. The idea being that as the party gets more powerful, a low LA race becomes more of just a flavor for that party member than actual power, and shouldn't hold back class progression relative to the party.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gomipile

Your point number 1 is explicitly addressed in UA. The relative value of racial features goes down as the party levels up, and the XP "bonus" for being lower level than the rest of the party was figured in when they wrote the LA buyoff rules. The idea being that as the party gets more powerful, a low LA race becomes more of just a flavor for that party member than actual power, and shouldn't hold back class progression relative to the party.

---

I'm questioning the justification in UA - that's the point of the thread.
The explanation given in UA is qualitative. Perhaps the racial features do become less valuable (what about a point of BAB vs +2 Str...what in that specific case makes the Str less valuable at higher levels?). But...the buyoff rules make the cost go down to *zero*. In a party of mixed ECLs, the lower level members will catch up until they are the same. Should the cost of racial features eventually be zero? Is this fair to the PCs using LA +0 races?

Or, what if the whole party does this - say, all LA +1, and they do it as early as possible? At some point, they'll become a party of 'ECL 3' characters with the wealth-by-level of a normal ECL 4 party (since it takes about as long to buyoff the level as to get to level 4). Is this good design? How should the DM deal with the fact that the party is now not only 'caught up', but even if their racial features provided zero benefit, they'd be richer than a normal ECL 4 party and that would also make encounters easier? Is the DM supposed to find ways to slow down their treasure until they are 'normal' for wealth-by-level again? (Did this side affect even occur to the original author of LA Buyoff?)

You could always give an xp discount for certain race/type combinations, similar to CR modifications.

A troglydite could make a great melee character for example, but a poor bard. Halving the buyoff for a troglydite bard cost might keep the character competitive with the rest of the party.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ffone

The explanation given in UA is qualitative. Perhaps the racial features do become less valuable (what about a point of BAB vs +2 Str...what in that specific case makes the Str less valuable at higher levels?).

---

A +2 Strength bonus is worse at higher levels for a few reasons. One, you can use BAB to qualify for feats and prestige classes. Two, BAB grants additional attacks on a full-attack action, whereas additional Strength does not. Three, opportunity cost. It becomes progressively easier to acquire Strength bonuses as you level up, with cheap magic items and long-duration buffs being the obvious choice. It is relatively difficult to acquire additional BAB at any level.

Quote:

---

But...the buyoff rules make the cost go down to *zero*. In a party of mixed ECLs, the lower level members will catch up until they are the same. Should the cost of racial features eventually be zero? Is this fair to the PCs using LA +0 races?

---

Sure. Why make a player pay for a feature that isn't benefiting them beyond the trivial? Say the party is level 15. One of them is Large sized somehow (and thus has a +1 LA), and thus does a whopping +1-2 extra damage, with slightly better reach. Everyone else could pay a tiny minuscule percentage of their wealth to get a magic item that permanently replicates the increased size (or better) if they even wanted to.

That Large size that may have been worth a level at levels 1-5, when the reach and bonus damage actually made a difference and weren't readily available in other forms, is no longer worth a level by any stretch of the imagination. It is worth effectively zero (in the same sense that if I make $100,000 a year, and my buddy makes $100,001 a year, we effectively make the same amount).

Quote:

---

Or, what if the whole party does this - say, all LA +1, and they do it as early as possible? At some point, they'll become a party of 'ECL 3' characters with the wealth-by-level of a normal ECL 4 party (since it takes about as long to buyoff the level as to get to level 4). Is this good design?

---

Close to 0% of D&D is "good design" both from a game perspective and a roleplaying game perspective. No, I wouldn't call it "good design". I would, however say it is "just as well designed as the rest of the system and doesn't require being singled out for a fix".

Quote:

---

How should the DM deal with the fact that the party is now not only 'caught up', but even if their racial features provided zero benefit, they'd be richer than a normal ECL 4 party and that would also make encounters easier? Is the DM supposed to find ways to slow down their treasure until they are 'normal' for wealth-by-level again? (Did this side affect even occur to the original author of LA Buyoff?)

---

These questions are inherently flawed because they're made under the assumption that encounter design is, without use of this rule, balanced. The 'Challenge rating' mechanic ranges from merely awkwardly ambiguous to hilariously random. The DM's heavy discretion is already required to tune encounter design so that it actually functions against their specific party of players. Use of this rule does not change this in any appreciable way.

The problem with citing Str- and size- boosting items as a counter to the racial features, is that they stack (just as they stack with higher BAB), and the PC with LA will have the same wealth as the human of the same ECL.

In fact, this makes the racial features more valuable. If Str boosting items were banned from a particular campaign, Str based builds would become less popular for it, since they'd be less minmaxable. And size increases damage exponentially (once large enough).

The racial features which do I agree get obseletized are things like 'poison immunity' which can be bought (esp. for a flat price) and where 'doubling up' or 'stacking' is meaningless/redundant.

BAB gives extra attacks, but at higher levels they matter less (further and further behind the 1st one), and they stop at 4. So this example is another case where LA seems to hurt more at low levels, not more at high levels.

Also, Str is a prereq for some things (some monster and epic feats). And it adds to damage and skill/ability checks, whereas BAB doesn't.

Whether +2 Str or +1 BAB is better won't be resolved in this thread - and there will be builds which need the point of BAB for some special prereq - but the point is, I don't see how +2 Str becomes 'less useful' or 'eclipsed by your other features' any more than a single point out of your +20 BAB does.

Well, the biggest question is, do you allow magic in your campaign at all? Especially if there are any tier 1 or 2 casters in the party, then any power level changes from buying off a LA will be lost in the noise.

I'd say that one should probably allow LA buyoff if only because it's more fun for some players that way.

It's worth pointing out that any bonus from LA-buyoff zeroing out LA is generally minimal compared to the bonus a wizard or similar caster can earn by spending an equivalent amount of exp crafting.