Are LA races ever worth it?

[Chroma]

First thing, there's no way Hobgoblins should be +1 LA, they get less special abilities than a Dwarf or even an Aasimar, it's just that, for some reason, having two stat increases is seen as over powering. The are not better than Dwarves if you list them side by side so that 1 LA really weakens them.

Second, IMC, for creatures with racial HD, we exchange the "last" racial HD for a class level of whatever class the character is going to be, kind of like what is implied by what happens with 1HD creatures taking a class. It's worked quite well and hasn't seemed over-powered.

 

[ruleslawyer]

The 3.0 approach to level adjustment was far superior to the feeble attempts set out by SS
Quite simply +1 HD doesn't equal +1level

Er, what's the difference between the 3.0 DMG approach and the SS approach, except that the latter allows increased flexibility?

As to LA: Sure, it's worth it sometimes. It just depends on the LA! For instance, I'd say that duergar (LA +1) is pretty darn powerful: +2 Con, skill bonuses, immunity to paralysis, phantasms, and poisons, and two SLAs that are highly useful for a fighter-type, at the cost of -4 Cha and a minor light penalty (which you can buy off with a feat anyway) seem pretty good. (Of course, that might just be because the base dwarf is so darn powerful!) Even some of the spellcasting races can be worth it: The black ethergaunt, for instance, is almost certainly worthwhile at +4 LA; for a total 20-level buy-in, you get a 17th-level wizard with a +20 (!) Int bonus, good Hit Dice, excellent other stat bonuses, blindsight, automatic ethereal jaunt, and all sorts of other bennies. This is absolutely worth it.

 

[Shade]

My group finds that the LA races that grant ability score boost only are rarely worth it, but those that grant things you can't easily acquire as a player character are often worth it.

The drow (regardless of your opinions of them), with SR 11 + character level, can't be beat.

IMHO, spell resistance is the biggest "carrot" to chase after, since the few magic items that grant it offer relatively weak, static spell resistance. Most everything else can be acquired through items.

 

[Zelda Themelin]

Nope, I don't think they never ever are worth it.
I hate whole idea of LA. It defines my logic. It says, hey, if you are anything
but human (or elf, dwarf etc.) your learning ability sucks. So, despite however more powerful you are supposed to be, weaker races always walk over you.
And this is how I think whenever I try to make monster npc and even for a while consider using LA.

I don't care a damn about it's supposed game balance effect. It ain't that right even from that point of view. LA:s tend to be way too high for what they are worth.

So I don't use LA at all as such. I use certain CR-calculation system of my own. If I allow monster characters, I just make sure party-members are equal, unless someone specially wants to be weaker. And then I just raise party-level considering how much less challenge certain critter is. I have to alter CR-rewards anyway, since with many monsters challenge sure isn't equal between fighter-type party, compared to arcane-caster party or rogue-type party.

 

[Felix]

It says, hey, if you are anything
but human (or elf, dwarf etc.) your learning ability sucks.

I don't care a damn about it's supposed game balance effect. It ain't that right even from that point of view. LA:s tend to be way too high for what they are worth.

This thing here is as good an explanation as I've seen for what you dislike about LAs...

 

[Halivar]

At ECL 11-15, they have the same number of attacks, and at ECL 16+ the human will have one more attack than the lycanthrope.

That's a good point. I don't think the extra attack means much, though. Let's assume our monster takes multiattack. At their respective level 20's, assuming our monster is still using natural attacks, we have the human sword wielder getting 4 attacks at +0/-5/-10/-15, while our monster still only gets 3 attacks at +0/+0/-2. I played a fighter to level 20, and I can say with some confidence that, against creatures at that CR, the weretiger is still going to be getting more hits in per full-attack than our human sword wielder. Against some creatures, I only rolled the last two attacks to see if I could squeak in a hit by critting. Getting one less attack for a pretty much equal chance of all my attacks hitting would have been a compelling trade (for me, it would have been a no-brainer).

 

[Lord Pendragon]

That's a good point. I don't think the extra attack means much, though. Let's assume our monster takes multiattack. At their respective level 20's, assuming our monster is still using natural attacks, we have the human sword wielder getting 4 attacks at +0/-5/-10/-15, while our monster still only gets 3 attacks at +0/+0/-2. I played a fighter to level 20, and I can say with some confidence that, against creatures at that CR, the weretiger is still going to be getting more hits in per full-attack than our human sword wielder. Against some creatures, I only rolled the last two attacks to see if I could squeak in a hit by critting. Getting one less attack for a pretty much equal chance of all my attacks hitting would have been a compelling trade (for me, it would have been a no-brainer).

There was a thread here a while back, "Fighter vs. PsyWar" in which Scion and Elder-Basilisk fully statted out 20th-level characters to compare their relative strengths and weaknesses. One of the side-effects of E-B's fighter build was that it also demonstrated that people give far too little credit to that fourth attack. If the fighter power attacks for a huge amount, it's a guaranteed miss on anything but a 20, but with little or no PA, it's still got a decent change to hit. And that's still another 1.5xstr + feats + magical bonuses in damage.

I'm not going to say you're wrong in your comparison, because frankly I'm not sure you are. It'd take people statting out the ECL 20 weretiger and 20th-level fighter and comparing them (like in the thread I mentioned) to really get a good feel for the strengths and weaknesses of the build, and I'm far too lazy to do such a thing.

Still, my gut feeling is that the weretiger is not a "clear winner" in that comparison.

 

[Philip]

It depends. Some LA races are not worth the trouble, but some of them are quite decent. If you want them to be mechanically comparable to +0 LA races you have to build them more carefully, though. Spellcasters are usually out.

Our DM asked us to build 16th lvl characters for a one-shot session, and I created a Centaur Ranger6/Order of the Bow Initiate4, a Treant Fighter4 and a Pixie Rogue6/Slayer of Domiel6. All three are quite comparable in saving throws, expected damage per round, skills etc. to the stock characters. But I think they have a huge added coolness factor that makes me want to play them.

If you want to play +LA races in a regular campaign I see much more RP obstacles than mechanical problems.

Besides, if you are really out to min/max you could get some extreme combinations out of the LA races. A 16th lvl Treant character could easily achieve a +29 bonus on trip rolls, for example, something that builds with regular races can only do with all kinds of non-core spells, items and other weird tricks. If you always wanted to trip dragon or do other weird stuff like that, some of those races can help you find what you want.

 

[Saeviomagy]

As per the faq, a monster can make natural attacks added to weapon attacks, so long as the respective limb is free. So a weretiger could make a regular iteration of attacks with a one-handed weapon, then a claw attack at full BAB, then a bite attack at BAB -5. Or use a two-handed weapon, and get the bite at -5.

Multi-attack is +0/+0/-2, I believe, instead of the normal +0/+0/-5.

No, that's not how it works. Each and every natural attack is used as a secondary, gaining half strength bonus and a -5 to hit (-2 with multi).

 

[Halivar]

No, that's not how it works. Each and every natural attack is used as a secondary, gaining half strength bonus and a -5 to hit (-2 with multi).

I don't know where in the world you got this. Every monster I see in the MM uses its full strength bonus for its primary attack(s), and gets half-strength and -5 only to its secondary attack. That's why the primary attack, listed in the MM stat-blocks as "Attack", has the same exact attack bonus under "Full Attack", because only the secondary attack listed under "Full Attack" receives the -5 penalty (-2 with Multiattack).

He is correct in saying it's +0/+0/-2 with Multiattack.