What do you think of this for a feat?

[flamewolf393]

This is designed for a specific character I am going to be playing and requires a very strange campaign to be useful. In a normal game, this is a monster feat only.

Form Absorption

Prerequisite:
Ooze or Aberration
Able to assume another form as a racial or class ability.
Int 3+

Benefit:
You must take a full round of concentration while in physical contact with another creature. That creature must be alive or dead less than 24 hours. You can now take monster levels in that creatures base race. In addition, each time you assume a different form you may choose a single set of physical features (Things like multiple limbs count as one feature) from each different monster race you have levels in. These features are seamlessly incorporated into your form.

This feature only works on things with a fixed organic body. Does not work on undead, constructs, oozes, most aberrations, or creatures not in their base form.

[Urpriest]

You would need to create "monster levels" out of whole cloth, by default there is no one thing that term refers to. You also need a better way to discretize features, perhaps actually referring to game mechanical terms? Finally, you should probably put homebrew in the homebrew forum.

[Twilightwyrm]

While I realize no sane DM would allow/provide the opportunity for this to happen, doesn't this technically let oozes and aberrations pull off pun-pun, albeit at higher level?

[flamewolf393]

@Urpriest just use the savage species guide and related resources. Tons of premade ones there with guides on how to make others.

@twilightwyrm: If I recall the sarrukh is epic level. The full power ability would not unlock until you have taken *all* the monster levels for it. And once you are in epic levels the ability would be insanely easy to get around. Thats if the DM even allows you access to said creature.

[Urpriest]

@Urpriest just use the savage species guide and related resources. Tons of premade ones there with guides on how to make others.

If that is what you mean by it then you need to be specific, since there are many things that get called "monster levels". "Levels in a monster class as per savage species" for example. Even if you know what it means, we don't, so you should have included something to that effect in the opening post.

More to the point, those classes are explicitly not designed to make sense as dips. They have a major balancing factor in that if you take some levels you must take all of them. Essentially all gain a hit die at first level, for example, so you could build a fairly powerful build out of short dips without taking on any Level Adjustment. The ones that offer Cleric casting and full BAB for the first three or so levels are particularly tempting in that regard.


@twilightwyrm: If I recall the sarrukh is epic level. The full power ability would not unlock until you have taken *all* the monster levels for it. And once you are in epic levels the ability would be insanely easy to get around. Thats if the DM even allows you access to said creature.

The Sarrukh is certainly not epic level, but it's largely irrelevant. Your rules say that as soon as you have a single level in one of the monster classes in question you gain:


In addition, each time you assume a different form you may choose a single set of physical features (Things like multiple limbs count as one feature) from each different monster race you have levels in. These features are seamlessly incorporated into your form.

"Physical Features" is not a game term. Depending on what categories of abilities it includes, it could well include the Sarrukh's Manipulate Form. You need to specify what you mean and use actual game terms. What sorts of things is this supposed to grant? In particular, what sorts of things is this supposed to grant beyond those already given by the monster class? What did you have in mind when you included this part of the rules?

As written, with a single level dip you can cherry-pick the best abilities of a given monster. That's not the same trick as Pun-Pun, but it's broken for the same reason that Pun-Pun is broken. Do you understand now?

Edit: Also, most Aberrations do have a fixed organic body. It's a minority that don't.

[flamewolf393]

I appreciate your input, and you have brought up some good points.

I dont particularly consider the monster levels *that* broken, simply because the levels and abilities are split in a way to make each level fairly balanced with a PC level. Like something that gets SR 20 normally may only have SR 5 at early levels. One level in a monster class does not get you that much. Granted, I am sure it would be easy to find horrible combos in this, but you can find horrible combos with PC dips too.

Simply because of the prereqs, this feat would rarely see the light of day except as a way to let DM's make some really weird monsters for the players to fight. I came up with this because my DM agreed to let me try the build I have in mind, but I am still having to come up with the mechanics for it to work.

[Twilightwyrm]

I appreciate your input, and you have brought up some good points.

I dont particularly consider the monster levels *that* broken, simply because the levels and abilities are split in a way to make each level fairly balanced with a PC level. Like something that gets SR 20 normally may only have SR 5 at early levels. One level in a monster class does not get you that much. Granted, I am sure it would be easy to find horrible combos in this, but you can find horrible combos with PC dips too.

Simply because of the prereqs, this feat would rarely see the light of day except as a way to let DM's make some really weird monsters for the players to fight. I came up with this because my DM agreed to let me try the build I have in mind, but I am still having to come up with the mechanics for it to work.

The problem is still there though: unless you plan to create monster classes for all monsters available in all the MMs, how do you decide when a monster gets a particular ability, and to what magnitude. Say, for example, you touch and assume the abilities of a Phoenix. The monster does not have a monster class designed for it, so when do you get its Immolation ability? Thematics sake could indicate you gain it at 1st level, or 20th level. Unless you, or the DM, designs a Monster Class for it, there is no way to know.

Let's take a more mundane example: The Grimmalkin. It is a medium sized, 4HD, Shapechanger. When do you gain its shapechanging ability? Because I know a lot of people that would willingly sacrifice a feat, a level, and a dead Grimmalkin in order to gain the ability to change into any medium or smaller animal unlimited times per day.

[flamewolf393]

I will admit some monsters are difficult to make levels for, but I have found those to be the exception rather than the rule.

For the Grimalkin, your shapechange ability would be limited at first level, maybe you can only change into things with 2 HD or less, and at limited times per day.

The pheonix I would have to go into more depth to check balance issues, but I think it would have something about like as follows:

{table=head]Level|BAB|Fort|Ref|Will|Abilities
1|0|2|2|1|burning hand 3/day; fire damage +1/+1
2|1|3|3|2|AC bonus 1/2
3|2|4|4|3|produce flame 1/day;
4|3|5|5|3|scorching ray 1/day; fire damage +1d2/1d4
5|4|6|6|4|AC bonus full;
6|5|7|7|5|burning hands at will;
7|6|8|8|6|produce flame 3/day; fire damage +1d4/1d6
8|7|9|9|6|scorching ray 3/day
9|8|10|10|7| rebirth[/table]

[SethoMarkus]

Even with the examples you gave for monster classes, those are homebrew. They might make sense, but in essence this would be a homebrew feat that had homebrew benefits from homebrew monster classes.

Sure, thematically this is an interesting and different ability, and for a DM to use as a base for a monster I don't see any problems with it (the DM is the final arbiter of the rules, afterall).

As far as a discussion on balancing or fleshing out the feat for general use (PC or otherwise), it is akin to creating a whole new supplementary system.

[Blueiji]

I say just do it. If you play-group doesn't have a problem with your feat and everyone is having fun then there's nothing to worry about. Just make sure to limit yourself and don't overshadow anyone.

[flamewolf393]

Even with the examples you gave for monster classes, those are homebrew. They might make sense, but in essence this would be a homebrew feat that had homebrew benefits from homebrew monster classes[...] it is akin to creating a whole new supplementary system.

While technically homebrew, it is following established guidelines presented in an official sourcebook. So at least I am not just trying to make stuff up out of whole cloth. :smallbiggrin:



I say just do it. If you play-group doesn't have a problem with your feat and everyone is having fun then there's nothing to worry about. Just make sure to limit yourself and don't overshadow anyone.

Thats what i figured, but I still like to get other peoples opinions on the stuff I make. I am trying to get into making real homebrew stuff. You know, the kind I might be able to publish a real setting/module for.

[mattie_p]

The pheonix I would have to go into more depth to check balance issues, but I think it would have something about like as follows:

{table=head]Level|BAB|Fort|Ref|Will|Abilities
1|0|2|2|1|burning hand 3/day; fire damage +1/+1
2|1|3|3|2|AC bonus 1/2
3|2|4|4|3|produce flame 1/day;
4|3|5|5|3|scorching ray 1/day; fire damage +1d2/1d4
5|4|6|6|4|AC bonus full;
6|5|7|7|5|burning hands at will;
7|6|8|8|6|produce flame 3/day; fire damage +1d4/1d6
8|7|9|9|6|scorching ray 3/day
9|8|10|10|7| rebirth[/table]

Umm, yeah, a Phoenix has 20 HD per MM2. Not 9. And there is guaranteed to be some kind of LA built in, I'd eyeball it as +4, maybe +5 (If WoTC were doing it). In a game I where I was DM I'd maybe let it go at +2.

[flamewolf393]

Oh sorry just realized the pheonix I was looking at was a weaker homebrew version: http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Phoenix_%283.5e_Creature%29

But its still a good example build.

[ArcturusV]

Hmm. Well, to be honest this feat hits a point of throughput threshold that I try to avoid when I make up stuff for my own games.

This one feat would require a MASSIVE amount of work. Effectively you have to find, or make, monster classes for every creature that your characters would ever run into. Everything from Skeletons to Shambling Mounds. Particularly if you have someone with Summon ____ and Planar Binding in your party (Very likely in my experience).

And what you gain from having that, is probably not all that great. It's not worth the sheer amount of effort it'd take.

By the way, you probably want to use the phrase "Natural Abilities" for what you gain out of this feat. "Natural Abilities", as far as I can figure the definition, is abilities that are defined by the physical nature of a creature. For example: The fact that a cerberus has 3 heads. Or that a Red Dragon has Flight. It doesn't include any of the Special Qualities/Special Attacks as far as I can tell, as they tend to be marked Ex or Su.

[137beth]

Even with the examples you gave for monster classes, those are homebrew. They might make sense, but in essence this would be a homebrew feat that had homebrew benefits from homebrew monster classes.

Sure, thematically this is an interesting and different ability, and for a DM to use as a base for a monster I don't see any problems with it (the DM is the final arbiter of the rules, afterall).

As far as a discussion on balancing or fleshing out the feat for general use (PC or otherwise), it is akin to creating a whole new supplementary system.
Is...is that a problem:smallconfused:
It does sound like it would be a lot more work for the DM. You wouldn't need to pre-make a monster class for every monster, but you would need to make one for every monster which the player touches and then wants to take levels in. This means that once the player decides "hey, I'm considering a level in <X monster> next time we level up, how would that look", then the DM has to divide up the abilities. Not on the fly, though, between sessions, when leveling up occurs. That can work fairly well if the DM is willing to do it--I know I periodically make feats if my players want something that isn't in a book, specifically for that character, and I occasionally do the same thing with classes. This does NOT mean you have to make a class for every monster you throw at the player--they can't possibly take levels in every monster you throw at them, you just have to work out stats for the few the player wants to use.

I will say, however, that this would require the DM to do substantially more homebrew classes than I would normally want to do in a game. That's okay, if you and your DM are fine with it, but be warned that it will be a lot of work.

[ArcturusV]

*shrug* It generally would mean "every creature" in my experience 137ben.

Because no one is going to really know what class they may want to take levels in necessarily. They will touch everything they kill, run into, etc, just to "have them on file", and when they level up, they'll want to pick the best one they can so they will ask about a class level for every creature they ever ran into.

Which depending on your campaign, is a metric ton of work. If I was running sessions once per week I probably wouldn't have time to really do it unless I had the entire week between sessions off.

[137beth]

*shrug* It generally would mean "every creature" in my experience 137ben.

Because no one is going to really know what class they may want to take levels in necessarily. They will touch everything they kill, run into, etc, just to "have them on file", and when they level up, they'll want to pick the best one they can so they will ask about a class level for every creature they ever ran into.

Which depending on your campaign, is a metric ton of work. If I was running sessions once per week I probably wouldn't have time to really do it unless I had the entire week between sessions off.

Yes, it would vary a lot based on the player. If the player in question thought "eh, that monster isn't "cool" enough for me to want to become it," they wouldn't always ask...
on the other hand, if they were playing to optimize, or if they just couldn't make up their minds about what they wanted to be, it would result in the scenario you described. So yea, there would have to be a sort of gentleman's agreement for the player to not ask the DM to make 902372038967 new classes...
Hmm, there is probably a way to codify such an agreement...
"this feat only allows you to store a maximum of X forms, which cannot be exchanged. So once you store X possible monster classes, you cannot store any more. Special: This feat can be taken multiple times. Each time you take it, you gain the capacity to learn another X monster classes."
I'd set X low. Three at the absolute maximum, which would allow you to take a different monster class every level if you spent all your feats on it. Probably I'd make X 1 or 2.

The issue then is that the player has to decide whether to use one of their "unlock that creature's class" uses before the DM has made a class for that creature, making it hard for the player to know what they are getting.

[flamewolf393]

Actually I was planning on making the classes as the player, then letting the DM check it for game balance. Puts all the effort on the player if they want to pull this off. I do like the idea of limiting the number of forms you can store.

Though I could always pull the *hidden training time* for leveling up and say that you need a week off to fully mutate/evolve or something. This would prevent someone from saving a level until they come across a specific situation where a particular monster would be useful and then suddenly leveling into it.

[SethoMarkus]

It probably isn't what you're really looking for, but have you taken a look at the Warshaper PrC from Complete Warrior? Even aside from actually using that class instead of this feat idea, the Warshaper class might spark some ideas.

And no, 137ben, there is no inherent problem with the workload associated with such a feat as this. I was simply showing that it would be a lot of work to take the feat form a fun little quirk requiring a gentleman's agreement into a fully fleshed-out feature of the game. From what it sounds like in the OP, this would either require a lot of DM/Player collaboration to flesh-out throughout gameplay, or an incredible amount of up-front work for, as ArcturusV pointed out, fairly little payoff. Even if the player did the majority of the work, the DM would still need to carefully look over everything to see if it was balanced appropriately for the game.

This is just my opinion, but I would instead try to work with the DM to create monster classes as-needed as per player interest to take such a class, or create templates that can be applied to an ooze or aberration as needed. Since the OP makes it sound like it would be a very limited use feat in the first place, I think this would be a lot less work-intensive method of achieving the same goals.

[TheSunKing]

Isn't there a Homebrew forum on this site?

Anyway, there was a discussion on how to play an ooze recently. With that it would be feasible to use this feat.