Level Adjustment (Cohort)

[Iku Rex]

You seem to have overlooked the first and most important part of my last post. I'll repeat it for your convenience:

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.

You're claiming that this interpretation is contradicted by the RAW because by the RAW Tieflings and Mephits [AKA "creatures with "Level Adjustment" included in their entry] are suitable for use as player characters or as cohorts . That's nonsense.

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

Because of the 'or' the implication is that the creature is suitable as one or the other, not both unless specifically mentioned.

So you actually believe that a creature without a LA: (cohort) entry can't be a cohort? (Really confused now... )

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.

I have no idea what you're talking about here. (Even more confused. )

You're saying that because it lists "Level Adjustment (cohort)" that means that it's actually NOT suitable for a cohort.

No, I'm not. Please RTFP before replying to it.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Iku - what's your point? And why are you being [so rude] about it?

 

[Iku Rex]

Iku - what's your point?

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".

The rules are not clear on this.

And why are you being [so rude] about it?

Rude? Where?

 

[Infiniti2000]

Iku Rex, what does RTFP mean? Let me see you type it out -- no, the real words -- and explain how it isn't rude. Nevertheless, I probably misunderstood something you said earlier and now we are off on a tangent. For that confusion, I apologize.

 

[Diirk]

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.

Actually the 'or' does support his case. You're thinking of and, like so:

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

But thats not what or means ;p When something has a LA tag it means it is suitable as a PC or a cohort. Thats spelled out in the rules. Now when a creature has a LA: x (cohort), its pretty clear that the LA is applied to the creature when it is a cohort. That means it doesn't have a LA when its a PC, and thus can't be a PC. This is still consistent with the earlier rule that anything with an LA can be either a PC or a cohort, because it CAN be a cohort.

False or true = true.

Now just because the rules say that you shouldn't play a petal as a PC doesn't mean that you can't just handwave that away. Its your game after all. They just recommend against it.

 

[Iku Rex]

Iku Rex, what does RTFP mean? Let me

see you type it out -- no, the real words -- and explain

how it isn't rude..

R.e.a.d t.h.e f.i.n.e p.o.s.t.

A perfectly reasonable response to someone inventing a claim out of thin air, attributing it to another poster, and then ranting about how "unreasonable" and "silly" the other poster is being.

Of course, if you have a tendency to read hostile intent into other people's posts you could go with "Read the F...ing Post", which would be more forceful but still not nearly as rude as not bothering to read someone's posts (plural) properly before replying to ridicule "his" claims.

 

[Iku Rex]

Actually the 'or' does support his case. You're thinking of and, like so:

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

No, there is no need for "and".

Let's reword the rule in question (without changing the meaning) to fit a specific creature.

The original:

This line is included in the entries of creatures suitable for use as player characters or as cohorts...

Modified to a specific creature:

A creature with the Level Adjustment line included in its entry is suitable for use as a player character or as a cohort ...

Do you agree that this is a reasonable "translation"?

So: In order for your interpretation to be in accordance with the rules, a tiefling (a creature with a Level Adjustment line included in its entry) must be suitable for use as a player character or as a cohort.

Agreed?

Since my "possible" interpretation and your (?) "100%" interpretation treat tieflings the same* you can't object to my use of "or" with regards to tieflings.

*The DMG's description of cohorts makes it clear that a cohort doesn't have to have the (cohort) tag, so I'm treating that as an established fact.

Then we get to mephits, at which point the rule reads:

A mephit is suitable for use as a player character or as a cohort ...

Is the rule true with my "possible" interpretation? Certainly.

I see the same rule saying the same thing about mephits and tieflings, and conclude that based on that rule mephits and tieflings are treated the same way.

Infiniti2000 (and you) insist that "or" must be read as "can be either" with regards to tieflings and "can't be either" with regards to mephits.

I don't see how you can call my interpretation unreasonable.

Now when a creature has a LA: x (cohort), its pretty clear that the LA is applied to the creature when it is a cohort. That means it doesn't have a LA when its a PC, and thus can't be a PC.

It does not follow.

I'll prove it by rewording it to refer to PCs:
Now when a creature has a LA: x , its pretty clear that the LA is applied to the creature when it is a player character. That means it doesn't have a LA when its a cohort, and thus can't be a cohort.

The premise is still true, the reasoning is the same, but the conclusion is false. That means that your logic is flawed.

This is still consistent with the earlier rule that anything with an LA can be either a PC or a cohort, because it CAN be a cohort.

True. (The rule in question remains logically True if mephits can't be PCs.) Which is why I keep insisting that "the RAW is unclear", rather than "I have the one correct answer". (Trust me - I'm not shy about the latter. )

 

[Diirk]

I'll prove it by rewording it to refer to PCs:
Now when a creature has a LA: x , its pretty clear that the LA is applied to the creature when it is a player character. That means it doesn't have a LA when its a cohort, and thus can't be a cohort.

I disagree heavily with this, its not the same as what I posted at all. Now if the creature had LA: x (PC) then I'd agree, it couldn't be used as a cohort. However when it just has LA: x it suggests to me that that applies equally to both PCs and cohorts of that race. LA: x (yy) suggests to me that x applies only to yy.

 

[Iku Rex]

I disagree heavily with this, its not the same as what I posted at all. Now if the creature had LA: x (PC) then I'd agree, it couldn't be used as a cohort. However when it just has LA: x it suggests to me that that applies equally to both PCs and cohorts of that race. LA: x (yy) suggests to me that x applies only to yy.

You disagree that "when a creature has a LA: x , its pretty clear that the LA is applied to the creature when it is a player character"? Probably not.

What you're disagreeing with is the conclusion, which I've already pointed out doesn't match the rules. That was the point.

You presented your argument as "proof" (?) that the now much discussed sentence from the MM must mean what you say it does, when in fact all you were doing was speculating about the purpose of the (cohort) tag. If you're now saying that in your opinion the tag "suggests" that the LA only applies to cohorts that's fine by me - it's not an unreasonable opinion - but it leaves us with unclear rules since it doesn't say that anywhere in the rules and it's not self-evident.

 

[werk]

If you're now saying that in your opinion the tag "suggests" that the LA only applies to cohorts that's fine by me - it's not an unreasonable opinion - but it leaves us with unclear rules since it doesn't say that anywhere in the rules and it's not self-evident.

The rules are usually vague when it comes down to very fine points like this. I guess you are saying that anything with an LA (cohort) can be a cohort or a PC...sure, why not? Why does it matter/What's the problem?

I also read a lot of confrontational tone into your posts...please remember, ENWorld didn't write this stuff, we're helpers, like you? If you are angry, write CS.