Fleshraker-The Playable Version

[MesiDoomstalker]

So I decided to take a whack at making an Anthromorphic Fleshraker as per Savage Species rules and like the playgrounds help and see if I did something wrong and discuss how terribly broken things become when you combine 2 cheesy things into 1 super-cheesy thing. Here's what I have:

•+6 Str, +8 Dex, +4 Constitution, +6 Wisdom, +6 Charisma.
•Medium: Fleshraker's are medium, so as per Anthro, they stay medium.
•Anthro Fleshraker's base land speed is 50 feet. It may be 40 as its not obvious if fleshraker's are quadrapeds or not but I believe they are raptor like.
• Antrho Fleshrakers have +6 Natural Armor.
•Natural Attacks: 2 claws (1d4+poison, primary), 1 bite (1d6, secondary), 1 tail slap? (1d6+poison, secondary) (I don't think its a tail slap as it delivers an injury poison and I'd think it be line a sting attack via the tail but I'm not sure). Anthro Fleshrakers can also make a Rake attack (1d6, secondary) when charging and using Leaping Pounce ability (see below) and in subsequent rounds after a grapple is established with Leaping Pounce ability (see below).
•Anthro Fleshrakers have Darkvision out to 60 ft.
•Special Attacks: Poison (EX): An Anthro Fleshraker can deliver an injury poison with its claws and tail attacks. Injury poison, 1d6 dex/1d6 dex. Save DC is 10+1/2 HD+Con. (or would it be 11+Con and ignore non-RHD?)
Leaping Pounce (EX): Exactly as the normal animal, I'd rather not re-type all of it. See MMIII, pg. 40.
•An Anthro Fleshraker has a +6 Racial Bonus on Jump checks and +8 (+10 in forested areas) to Hide checks.
•An Anthro Fleshraker starts with 2 hit die of Monstrous Humanoid, giving him 2d8+con HP, +2 BAB, +2/3 Fort, +3 Ref, +3 Will, and 5xint skill points. His class skills are Hide and Jump.
•Automatic Language: Common? What else? I have no idea.
•Favored Class: Ranger?
•LA: +1 to +4

Honestly, I have no idea where to place the LA. You get positive boost across the ability board, minus Int, Pounce+, and an Injury poison on your 2 primary natural attacks and 1 of 2 secondary natural attacks. But you do get 2 Monstrous Humanoid RHD, which pretty much stinks. I do think they need at least 1 LA, but I'm not sure if 3 is too much or even 2 is too much. What does the playground think? Did I miss something somewhere?

Now in the proper forum! :smallredface:

[NeoSeraphi]

The problem with using a race that uses poison is that using poisons is an evil act. (Thanks Book of Exalted Deeds. Thanks a lot) So by RAW, your options will be limited (Certain deities will be off limits, good-aligned divine spells and paladin-hood are a no-no)

[Sir Swindle89]

All things considered using strict SS rules it prolly reaches up into the +4 LA area. your best bet on getting an accurate LA is by acid testing against a Ranger or swift hunter that prefers poison (harvested from his Fleshraker companion of course).

Also on the good evil thing BoED says poison use is evil and the paladin oath restricts it. however nothing else says you can't preform evil acts (including the alignment section of the PHB) so you're fleshraker sould be fine for most stuff.

Edit: At a passing glance you appeared to do every thing correctly. I do Anthropomorphic games all the time. You should list the natural armor as well.

[MesiDoomstalker]

All things considered using strict SS rules it prolly reaches up into the +4 LA area. your best bet on getting an accurate LA is by acid testing against a Ranger or swift hunter that prefers poison (harvested from his Fleshraker companion of course).

Also on the good evil thing BoED says poison use is evil and the paladin oath restricts it. however nothing else says you can't preform evil acts (including the alignment section of the PHB) so you're fleshraker sould be fine for most stuff.

Edit: At a passing glance you appeared to do every thing correctly. I do Anthropomorphic games all the time. You should list the natural armor as well.

Oops, forgot that, editing now. Anthro Fleshraker will definatly out perform a Ranger of equal HD due to higher stats and AC plus built in Pounce+. I think LA +4 would be pushing it too high, imho, but more balanced for other things. So its more, "LA is a stupid concept so lets minimize it" for my end and "LA should be this because it seems balanced" on your end. So you win :smallannoyed:

[ZardozSpeaks]

Just because you have poison, doesn't mean to you need to use it. Presumably the OP wants an anthro fleshraker for that purpose though. If the DM or Player had a problem with it, poison glands can be surgically removed.

[MesiDoomstalker]

Just because you have poison, doesn't mean to you need to use it. Presumably the OP wants an anthro fleshraker for that purpose though. If the DM or Player had a problem with it, poison glands can be surgically removed.

I really made it just to make it and have it if I ever wanted it. The thing with the poiso is the DC is either pitiful or decent. If it runs off of RHD, it is horrid, if it runs off of HD period, its better but stil bad as things usually have high fort. 1d6/1d6 can be quite a bit. What if it was 1d3/1d3 or 1d6/1 instead? Far less detrimental, with a max of 7 per application. I'd only do that if the DC was 10+1/2 Char levle+Con, otherwise it becomes pointless.

[NeoSeraphi]

I really made it just to make it and have it if I ever wanted it. The thing with the poiso is the DC is either pitiful or decent. If it runs off of RHD, it is horrid, if it runs off of HD period, its better but stil bad as things usually have high fort. 1d6/1d6 can be quite a bit. What if it was 1d3/1d3 or 1d6/1 instead? Far less detrimental, with a max of 7 per application. I'd only do that if the DC was 10+1/2 Char levle+Con, otherwise it becomes pointless.

*facepalms* Have you ever fought a fleshraker? The creature gets three poison attacks per round. That's 3 5% chances of rolling a natural 1 for the enemy. The DC is irrelevant. DC is only relevant for spellcasters, Stunning Fists, things that have crappy uses per day. Abilities that are not only at-will, but multiple times per round? It's okay to have a crappy DC because the odds are very in your favor that eventually you will poison the character you're fighting.

The DC isn't what's important. It's the damage of the claws. They're pretty crappy. So anything with DR probably doesn't have to worry about needing to save to begin with. Then again, it's Dexterity damage. While you could theoretically end up rendering someone helpless with it, it won't kill them, and unless you do render them helpless it won't help you much except to hit them (which you already have, so their AC must not be that great to begin with), weaken their ranged attacks (which are already pretty bad if it let the dinosaur maul it), and screw up their Reflex saves a bit. (Meanwhile Con damage poison directly affects how likely the creature is to save against the next dose of it by weakening their Fort saves)

I think a d6/d6 is fine.

[Sir Swindle89]

If it runs off of RHD, it is horrid, if it runs off of HD period, its better but stil bad as things usually have high fort.

I don't think things mechanically can run off of RHD within the system. Pretty much evey thing just states HD. Weather this is because the designers never considered monsters having classes or not is irrelevent (and crazy).

Also it's woth noting that i think the Fleashracker poision is a contact poison not an injury one. I really don't know how that affects things mechanics wise. (I'd give the option of going for nondamaging touch attacks to my players but i'm fairly sure thats not a rule) Going entirely off memory here so it may not even matter.


Anthro Fleshraker will definatly out perform a Ranger of equal HD...

By HD do you mean ECL?
as a semi itemized breakdown for a ranger5 vs. +3LA.
+4bab vs. +6str?
3dice vs. +4con?
Animal companion, Favored enemy, a combat feat, and a bunch of skills vs. +8 dex, poison, natural attacks and some skill bonuses?

It's probably worth bumping up to a +4 but that would depend a lot on your game style and if you allow buy off.

[MesiDoomstalker]

*facepalms* Have you ever fought a fleshraker? The creature gets three poison attacks per round. That's 3 5% chances of rolling a natural 1 for the enemy. The DC is irrelevant. DC is only relevant for spellcasters, Stunning Fists, things that have crappy uses per day. Abilities that are not only at-will, but multiple times per round? It's okay to have a crappy DC because the odds are very in your favor that eventually you will poison the character you're fighting.

The DC isn't what's important. It's the damage of the claws. They're pretty crappy. So anything with DR probably doesn't have to worry about needing to save to begin with. Then again, it's Dexterity damage. While you could theoretically end up rendering someone helpless with it, it won't kill them, and unless you do render them helpless it won't help you much except to hit them (which you already have, so their AC must not be that great to begin with), weaken their ranged attacks (which are already pretty bad if it let the dinosaur maul it), and screw up their Reflex saves a bit. (Meanwhile Con damage poison directly affects how likely the creature is to save against the next dose of it by weakening their Fort saves)

I think a d6/d6 is fine.

Consensus: DC doesn't matter, its at-will and up to 3 times per round but it targets Dex and thus is not immidiatly life-threatening (like Con poison). The poison alone should be worth at least +1 LA based on this analysis.


I don't think things mechanically can run off of RHD within the system. Pretty much evey thing just states HD. Weather this is because the designers never considered monsters having classes or not is irrelevent (and crazy).

Also it's woth noting that i think the Fleashracker poision is a contact poison not an injury one. I really don't know how that affects things mechanics wise. (I'd give the option of going for nondamaging touch attacks to my players but i'm fairly sure thats not a rule) Going entirely off memory here so it may not even matter.



By HD do you mean ECL?
as a semi itemized breakdown for a ranger5 vs. +3LA.
+4bab vs. +6str?
3dice vs. +4con?
Animal companion, Favored enemy, a combat feat, and a bunch of skills vs. +8 dex, poison, natural attacks and some skill bonuses?

It's probably worth bumping up to a +4 but that would depend a lot on your game style and if you allow buy off.

It is injury, check out MMIII, page 40, bottom right corner. When I say equal HD, I mean Ranger 3 vs. Antrho Fleshraker Ranger 1. Obviously, the Anthro Fleshraker will win. Pounce+, better stats, and dex poison.

I think I should approach it differently and look at each aspect seperatly and then how they interact to determine its LA.

High stats: According to Savage Species, this is worth a whole +1 LA but I don't buy thats, so I'll peg it +0.5-1 LA for now.

Pounce+: Lets me full attack, trip, rake, and possibly pin all in one action. Not to mention multiple natural attacks and 3 doses of poison. At least +2, maybe +3.

Natural Armor +6: As with stats, Savage Species says this is another full +1 LA but since AC scales horrifically, I'm dropping it to +0.5.

Poison: 1d6/1d6 on 3 attacks per round (thanks to pounce+). Worth at least +1, maybe +1.5 because of how often it can be applied.

Lower Estimate: 0.5 (stats)+ 2 (Pounce+) + 0.5 (NA)+ 1 (Poison)= +4

Higher Estimate: 1 (stats) + 3 (Pounce+) + 1 (NA) + 1.5 (Poison)= 6.5 ~ +6 which is just unplayable.

Now thats for ECL. So with the lower estimate, ECL should be 4 (RHD 2, +2 LA) and higher estimate is for ECL 6 (RHD 2, +4 LA).

But thats just my own anaylsis. Should I exclude RHD in determining its LA? Or did I miss something that contributes to ECL?

[NeoSeraphi]

High stats: According to Savage Species, this is worth a whole +1 LA but I don't buy thats, so I'll peg it +0.5-1 LA for now.

Pounce+: Lets me full attack, trip, rake, and possibly pin all in one action. Not to mention multiple natural attacks and 3 doses of poison. At least +2, maybe +3.

Natural Armor +6: As with stats, Savage Species says this is another full +1 LA but since AC scales horrifically, I'm dropping it to +0.5.


Savage Species is a 3.0 book. It was balanced against 3.0 monsters, not 3.5. Savage Species may have been grandfathered in, but it wasn't written with 3.5 in mind and should not be a balance point for 3.5 races in any way.

[Yitzi]

The problem with using a race that uses poison is that using poisons is an evil act. (Thanks Book of Exalted Deeds. Thanks a lot) So by RAW, your options will be limited (Certain deities will be off limits, good-aligned divine spells and paladin-hood are a no-no)

That's only true if BoED is on the list of eligible sourcebooks for the campaign (my guess is that you can talk your DM to removing it unless the campaign is supposed to be unrealistically pure, as it's really over-the-top. I've got a definitively good-aligned campaign (i.e. Good is on the offensive this time, and in a big way) in the works, and even if I were allowing books by default, I'd ban BoED because you simply can't have a realistic good-aligned faction with it included.)

[Sir Swindle89]

Savage Species is a 3.0 book. It was balanced against 3.0 monsters, not 3.5. Savage Species may have been grandfathered in, but it wasn't written with 3.5 in mind and should not be a balance point for 3.5 races in any way.

It's the only published guidline we have and it openly admit's that it's ratings are estimates and should always be acid tested.