Level Adjustment (Cohort)

[Anubus]

What exactly does the (cohort) level adjustment mean? For example the blink dog has a LA: 2 (cohort), I'm guessing this means that it's a viable cohort species, but not a PC one, but I can't actually find a definition of this anywhere. Cheers

 

[Infiniti2000]

What exactly does the (cohort) level adjustment mean? For example the blink dog has a LA: 2 (cohort), I'm guessing this means that it's a viable cohort species, but not a PC one, but I can't actually find a definition of this anywhere. Cheers

Your guess is correct. It actually uses the term 'suitable' instead of 'viable' but I think the meaning is close enough. The MM for the description of Level Adjustment should describe it, or you can check the SRD for a brief statement.

 

[Iku Rex]

Your guess is correct. It actually uses the term 'suitable' instead of 'viable' but I think the meaning is close enough. The MM for the description of Level Adjustment should describe it, or you can check the SRD for a brief statement.

The MM does not "describe it". Do you have a better citation?

 

[shilsen]

The MM does not "describe it". Do you have a better citation?

MM, pg. 7, right-hand column.

 

[Iku Rex]

MM, pg. 7, right-hand column.

The quote i question:

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).

So, this quote describes how a creature with a LA: (cohort) entry is a viable cohort species, but not a PC one. Where?

What if I claim that the same quote describes how a creature without a LA: (cohort) entry can't be a cohort, while all creatures with some sort of LA entry can be cohorts? Can you prove me wrong using that quote?


In case you're wondering, the issue (as far as I am concerned - I can't speak for the OP) is if (cohort) means "especially suitable as a cohort" or "can't possibly be a PC". For example, I rather like petals (1HD Tiny humanoid Fey from the MM3, LA: +2 [cohort]). I don't see how a petal is a less suitable PC than some of the bizarre "pure LA" creatures out there.

 

[Thanee]

So, this quote describes how a creature with a LA: (cohort) entry is a viable cohort species, but not a PC one. Where?

The '(cohort)' part behind the LA probably just means that it applies to cohorts but not PCs.

Bye
Thanee

 

[glass]

In case you're wondering, the issue (as far as I am concerned - I can't speak for the OP) is if (cohort) means "especially suitable as a cohort" or "can't possibly be a PC". For example, I rather like petals (1HD Tiny humanoid Fey from the MM3, LA: +2 [cohort]). I don't see how a petal is a less suitable PC than some of the bizarre "pure LA" creatures out there.

I don't think it's a hard and fast rule, so much as a warning that the character might be problematic as a PC. I guess when they were adding LA to thing for the purposes of making them cohorts, they just wanted to make it clear that that was why they were doing it. The final decission as to whether a given character race is viable in a given campaign still rests with the DM, of course.


glass.

 

[Infiniti2000]

So, this quote describes how a creature with a LA: (cohort) entry is a viable cohort species, but not a PC one. Where?

Well, it's the only quote available, but I think it's pretty clear. It says suitable as a PC or cohort. If (cohort) is on the line, it's patently obvious that means it's suitable as a cohort, not a PC. If (cohort) is not on the line, it's suitable as a PC.

What if I claim that the same quote describes how a creature without a LA: (cohort) entry can't be a cohort, while all creatures with some sort of LA entry can be cohorts? Can you prove me wrong using that quote?

I suppose you can claim anything you want. If you want to be reasonable about your claim, though, you won't do it. It would be like assuming that when it says 8HD, that really means anything but 8HD. How silly is that, really?

 

[Iku Rex]

Well, it's the only quote available, but I think it's pretty clear. It says suitable as a PC or cohort.

The "or" does not support your case.

My "not unreasonable or contradicted by the rules" interpretation:
Example 1: Tiefling. LA +1. Suitable as a PC or a cohort. Check.
Example 2: Mephit. LA +3. Suitable as a PC or a cohort. Check.

Your "100% certain" interpretation:
Example 1: Tiefling. LA +1. Suitable as a PC or a cohort. Check.
Example 2: Mephit. LA +3. NOT suitable as a PC, only as a cohort.

My "prove me wrong" interpretation:
Example 1: Tiefling. LA +1. NOT suitable as a cohort, only as a PC.
Example 2: Mephit. LA +3. Suitable as a PC or a cohort. Check.


Edit: Note that mephits have the (cohort) tag. Maybe that wasn't clear.

If (cohort) is on the line, it's patently obvious that means it's suitable as a cohort, not a PC. If (cohort) is not on the line, it's suitable as a PC.

It doesn't say that, and it's not "patently obvious".

What if I claim that the same quote describes how a creature without a LA: (cohort) entry can't be a cohort, while all creatures with some sort of LA entry can be cohorts? Can you prove me wrong using that quote?

I suppose you can claim anything you want. If you want to be reasonable about your claim, though, you won't do it.

So that's a "no" then, with some bluster thrown in for good measure.

It would be like assuming that when it says 8HD, that really means anything but 8HD. How silly is that, really?

No, it would not be "like" that.

 

[Infiniti2000]

It doesn't say that, and it's not "patently obvious".

Sure it is. It lists "cohort" and therefore the creature is suitable as a cohort. Because of the 'or' the implication is that the creature is suitable as one or the other, not both unless specifically mentioned. I suppose you could read the lack of listing a PC as suitable for being a PC, but then you should make the same negative inference for cohorts when it doesn't list 'cohort', at which point the existence of the word 'cohort' in the line has absolutely no meaning whatsoever.

So that's a "no" then, with some bluster thrown in for good measure.

No, it's not bluster. What you are suggesting is totally unreasonable. You're saying that because it lists "Level Adjustment (cohort)" that means that it's actually NOT suitable for a cohort. Negating the entry like that is quite unreasonable. My example shows why you can't do that. You can't/shouldn't infer a stat block line with a NOT in front of it. What's to keep you from putting NOT in front of the HD or anything other line? So, yes, it's exactly like that.

Everyone else reads "Level Adjustment (cohort)" and you read "Level Adjustment (not cohort)". How can you reasonably defend this interpretation?