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.Anubus said: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
The MM does not "describe it". Do you have a better citation?Infiniti2000 said: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.
MM, pg. 7, right-hand column.Iku Rex said:The MM does not "describe it". Do you have a better citation?
The quote i question:shilsen said:MM, pg. 7, right-hand column.
SRD said: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).
Iku Rex said:So, this quote describes how a creature with a LA: (cohort) entry is a viable cohort species, but not a PC one. Where?
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.Iku Rex said: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.
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.Iku Rex said:So, this quote describes how a creature with a LA: (cohort) entry is a viable cohort species, but not a PC one. Where?
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 said: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?
The "or" does not support your case.Infiniti2000 said:Well, it's the only quote available, but I think it's pretty clear. It says suitable as a PC or cohort.
It doesn't say that, and it's not "patently obvious".Infiniti2000 said: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.
So that's a "no" then, with some bluster thrown in for good measure.Infiniti2000 said:I suppose you can claim anything you want. If you want to be reasonable about your claim, though, you won't do it.IKu Rex said: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?
No, it would not be "like" that.Infiniti2000 said:It would be like assuming that when it says 8HD, that really means anything but 8HD. How silly is that, really?
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.Iku Rex said:It doesn't say that, and it's not "patently obvious".
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.Iku Rex said:So that's a "no" then, with some bluster thrown in for good measure.