Would you throw a book at the player if they asked to play this?

[CyberThread]

Now the huge question, this was suggestion by our lovely biff for another thread. Now you as a DM, would you allow this(based on a power level decision) , on a ECL 10 group?






Tauric Human+Lammasu, 8 HD of Monstrous Humanoid and +3 LA, 7th level Cleric casting with the Good and Healing domains, permanent supernatural Magic Circle against Evil, a few strong spell-like abilities, 2 claws, Pounce, 2 rakes, Str +12, Dex +2, Con +6, fly 60 ft. average maneuverability, +10 natural armor, plus all the benefits of being Human. Could possibly be considered to always be mounted due to his shape similar to a Centaur or Zelekhut. If this gains a level of Cleric then it actually gets two additional domains. It's a perfect candidate for Prestige Paladin (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/prestigiousCharacterClasses.htm#prestigePaladin), especially if you don't have to take Mounted Combat for the same reason a Zelekhut doesn't need it.

[ngilop]

well considering its ECL 11. No.

but IF you had an ECL 11 goup IMO it would be fine, its not much different than a fighter/cleric multiclass. the supernatural an spell like abilities aren't that overpowering.

but that depends strictly on your own groups 'power level' are they the type who think that clerics should just heal and wizard should toss as many fireballs as possible?

then your tauric human lammasu might be a bit more powerful.

[Snowbluff]

I would allow it for an ECL 10 group if a level was bought off.

I kind of want to play one, now.

[NeoPhoenix0]

I would allow it for an ECL 10 group if a level was bought off.

I kind of want to play one, now.

That looks like racial hit dice. You need class levels to buy off LA.

[Emperor Tippy]

Seeing as it is ECL 11, no I wouldn't allow it in an ECL 10 game.

[Eurus]

Tauric in general is a template that is very easy to unbalance or break, and I personally wouldn't allow it in general. Is this particular use of Tauric that unbalanced? Well, probably not, by my standards. Compared to an 11th level cleric, you're basically losing three hit dice (which means less skill points, less hit points, one less feat) in exchange for stat bonuses, natural weapons, fly speed, and a human feat/skill point. The decision is mostly up to you, though.

And obviously, an ECL 11 character in a level 10 party is kind of baffling.

[Urpriest]

I'm a big believer in precedent, so I'd have to say no. Tauric is just way too abusable, even if this itself isn't abuse.

[Snowbluff]

That looks like racial hit dice. You need class levels to buy off LA.

Hm... I would let them buy it off. You're right, it's not RAW, but this is an opinion thread.

[Grod_The_Giant]

It's pretty strong, but being 4 cleric levels behind hurts pretty good. I'd allow it in a generally high power game. (Ie, full casters, tome of battle, factotums, etc).

[Toliudar]

Also, Lammmasu are actually +5 LA, so it's really an ECL 13 character. You might be better off just playing a Lammasu. Better mental stats and who needs arms, really?

[ZamielVanWeber]

I was thinking of running it into prestige paladin in an ECL 12 game that will be starting soon.

[Thrawn183]

I would, but mostly because a LA of +5. Unless I'm totally misreading the whole tauric creature template...

Edit: That is to say, shouldn't it be an ECL 12?

Edit: Guess my math was bad too.

[NeoPhoenix0]

I wouldn't allow it unless my group wanted to play a monster campaign. And even then the ECL of the party would have to be at least 11.

On the ECL question, You add the hit dice of the creatures. 7 HD for the Lammasu and 1 HD for human for a total of 8 HD, you treat creatures that normally only have class levels as having 1 HD for this template. You add +3 LA to the base creature, which in this case is 0 to a total of +3, because the human is the base creature not the Lammasu.

[AMX]

Also, Lammmasu are actually +5 LA, so it's really an ECL 13 character. You might be better off just playing a Lammasu. Better mental stats and who needs arms, really?

They are using the "ignore the LA of the bottom half" reading of the Tauric template.
The +3 is from Tauric, the Lammasu's +5 is ignored.

[The Corinthian]

I don't throw books, but I wouldn't allow this.

Not because it's overpowered (probably isn't, at ECL 11) but because it's 1. a stupid concept (A Lammasu adventurer would be pretty borderline in itself, but a tauric lammasu? Get out of town.) and 2. would be a real headache to have in a party, due to being Large, nonhumanoid and standing out like a sore thumb, requiring all kinds of accomodation to adventure with a typical party.

[Brookshw]

Hmm....tauric works in beasts, animals and vermin while lammasu are magical beasts. How would this work?

[ZamielVanWeber]

3.0 Beasr is 3.5 magical beast.

[nedz]

Hmm....tauric works in beasts, animals and vermin while lammasu are magical beasts. How would this work?

this says no for me — Template Error: Invalid base creature type.

[CyberThread]

Seems we are having mass confusion on LA and what is allowed


+3 LA MMII Errata

Magical Beast, was also added in the 3.5 version.

[ZamielVanWeber]

The updated 3.5 version of the template specifies magical beast instead of beast.

[nedz]

3.0 Beasr is 3.5 magical beast.

The MM2 3.0 to 3.5 Update booklet just says that Beast was eliminated.

Ed:

Tauric Creature: Monstrous Humanoid; 10 ft./5 ft.; Intimidate +5, Jump +13, Listen +8, Move Silently +5, Spot +7; Alertness, Great Fortitude, Iron Will; LA Base humanoid +3; Sample creature: Iron Will feat increases Will save to +4.
See Monster Manual glossary for revised definition of rake.

No mention of Magical Beast :smallconfused:

[DR27]

I don't throw books, but I wouldn't allow this.

Not because it's overpowered (probably isn't, at ECL 11) but because it's 1. a stupid concept (A Lammasu adventurer would be pretty borderline in itself, but a tauric lammasu? Get out of town.) and 2. would be a real headache to have in a party, due to being Large, nonhumanoid and standing out like a sore thumb, requiring all kinds of accomodation to adventure with a typical party.This. PCs weren't really intended to be monsters. They can be, but are usually at least kinda humanoid (goliath, half ogre, etc). This is a humanoid superglued onto a lion-looking thingy. I have a hard time envisioning the party this is supposed to fit in with. Or how it came to be. At least arcane aberrations in dungeons can be handwaved as some sort of experiment gone awry, but this PC concept is gonna be tough to integrate/use without constant polymorphing, which I kinda don't like to begin with.

But different campaigns function in different ways - so this guy might fit in without any problems - "It's good to save a fellow follower of Pelor from the clutches of your mad Wizard overlord" or something.

[CyberThread]

<-< honestly, I would just play it as a talking mount, for some high lord that got missing and part of the campaign.

[ngilop]

Umm.. if you are just going to use it as a mount... why 'tauric' the lammasu in the first place? unless you just doing it to get rid of the level adjustment from being a lammasu. and in that case that's too much cheese for my type of playstyle.

[Chronos]

I agree with Urpriest. The moment I saw "Tauric" in the write-up, I said "No way". That template is just absurd.

[CyberThread]

Umm.. if you are just going to use it as a mount... why 'tauric' the lammasu in the first place? unless you just doing it to get rid of the level adjustment from being a lammasu. and in that case that's too much cheese for my type of playstyle.


I AM the mount

[Brookshw]

3.0 Beasr is 3.5 magical beast.

Not sure that would fly, first entry for beast is dinosaur (not sure if this is 3.0 or 3.5 mm2). Dinos were retyped to animals in mm1 3.5. Beast =/= magical beast necessarily cross versions though there may be examples counter..

[ShneekeyTheLost]

ERROR: DIVIDE BY LAMMASU

Lammasu is not a valid 'tauric' target, due to being Magical Beast and sentient in nature already, breaking both RAW and RAI.

I don't have a problem with silly character concepts, although I would make sure that if they didn't have a good way of disguising their true form, the general public would react appropriately (i.e. running screaming in terror and calling for the guard to dispose of the monster).

Also do note that while Lammasu do have casting as per 7th level Cleric, Tauric template does not state that it retains any casting. Therefore, you would simply have 8 RHD of Monsterous Humanoid and no casting at all.


Not sure that would fly, first entry for beast is dinosaur (not sure if this is 3.0 or 3.5 mm2). Dinos were retyped to animals in mm1 3.5. Beast =/= magical beast necessarily cross versions though there may be examples counter..

In 3.5, Dinosaurs are considered Animals.

[ZamielVanWeber]

The MM2 3.0 to 3.5 Update booklet just says that Beast was eliminated.

Ed:


No mention of Magical Beast :smallconfused:

Wow. I super goofed. I apologize.

[NeoPhoenix0]

I don't see anything on what creature types are valid for tauric in the update booklet. If I'm right about that then the most up to date source on what creature types are valid is savage species as it is newer than monster manual II. It says the animal, magical beast, and vermin types are valid as long as they are medium or large, are corporeal, and have four legs.

[nedz]

Savage species is 3.0 and was published in 2003

The MM2 update booklet was also published in 2003

I'm not sure, but I think that the update booklet is more recent.

[NeoPhoenix0]

Savage species is 3.0 and was published in 2003

The MM2 update booklet was also published in 2003

I'm not sure, but I think that the update booklet is more recent.

The update booklet is more recent, but it doesn't say anything about what creatures you can use to make a tauric creature. Does the update booklet give the Monster Manuel II precedence over Savage Species?

[Psyren]

Just be Bariaur Totemist* with Lammasu Mantle :smalltongue:

*Possibly going into Sapphire Hierarch

[Darrin]

The MM2 3.0 to 3.5 Update booklet just says that Beast was eliminated.
No mention of Magical Beast :smallconfused:

Tauric was reprinted in Savage Species:

"any Medium-size or Large corporeal animal, magical beast, or vermin with at least four legs (referred to hereafter as the base creature)."

So yes, magical beasts are allowed on the bottom half by RAW.

[icefractal]

So compared to an 11th-level Cleric, you're giving up 4 CLs to get fairly beefy physical stats, some natural armor, and some SLAs that are nice but only usable a few times a day. Seems reasonable, I'd allow it (assuming that a winged-lion centaur fit the campaign).

However, I would definitely state that does not constitute blanket approval of the Tauric template. In fact, unless the player was really attracted to being centaur-like, I'd just drop the Lammasu LA to +3 and tell them to play that.

[Psyren]

Tauric was reprinted in Savage Species:

"any Medium-size or Large corporeal animal, magical beast, or vermin with at least four legs (referred to hereafter as the base creature)."

So yes, magical beasts are allowed on the bottom half by RAW.

SS is still 3.0 though. It's after MM2 but before the MM2 3.5 update IIRC.

[CyberThread]

So Psyren, would you give us what you believe is the overall up to date, template is?

[Pickford]

Now the huge question, this was suggestion by our lovely biff for another thread. Now you as a DM, would you allow this(based on a power level decision) , on a ECL 10 group?

Sorry, what does a tauric human half-lammasu even look like? (Side note: No. Violence is never the answer.)

I think I'd rule unless they could draw me a picture and make a compelling argument for how this creature exists, it wouldn't happen (templating be damned).

One further: How do people who play monstrous characters think said character is ever going to survive? Don't they just get run over at the first zebra crossing?

[CyberThread]

First, something like this, just lil more human at the top

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/rof_gallery/49728.jpg


Two Compelling reason, as stated by the template, can be by divine reasoning or hellish punishment, pick which you want.


Third.... a divine mount, this creature is litterily pumping out holy aura between the divine casting, protection from evil circle

[ngilop]

SO basically what you want is a wemic.. ( it would be easier to just create a half-celtial wemic honestly)

But to me it seems that the OP just wnated to get sweet awesome lammasu stuff but didn;t want to have to 'pay' the Level adjustment fo +5 so he found a way to sneak it by by applying the Tauric template.

but im pretty sure a 'good sentient race would not like to be used as a mount and ya know.. want to be treated as an actual snetient race?


but in short this is just cheese.

[CyberThread]

<-< counter argue with unicorn


And no , was asked what it looked liked and stuff, with a google search in less then two mins, lol.


AS for biff, biff was making example of what is waht for a 10 ECL character


As for OP , OP want's to make a creature that can act as a mount, and still be feasible by itself.

[lunar2]

savage species also lists the LA as 2, not 3. meaning that, if you are using the savage species version of the template, it is an ECL 10 character. and this makes no less sense than a centaur, or any other hybrid of 2 creatures. even winged centaurs have fictional precedent (if you want to count xanth as precedent for anything), and the example savage species creature uses a griffon as the base. this would honestly look a lot like that.

now, i'd say that this particular use of tauric is ok, with the caveat that it does not mean blanket approval for the tauric template in general. lammasu are over LA'ed to begin with, so the cheesiness of this doesn't bother me.

[Ravens_cry]

Honestly, I have more issues with its tone conflict than anything. It really doesn't look like it would fit in most campaigns.

[Psyren]

So Psyren, would you give us what you believe is the overall up to date, template is?

I'm not the template guru, that's Urpriest and some others. I was just pointing out that neither of those books is 3.5, which is true.

[lunar2]

Honestly, I have more issues with its tone conflict than anything. It really doesn't look like it would fit in most campaigns.

to be fair, it was suggested for a monstrous campaign. so in that regard it would fit the tone just fine.

[Pickford]

to be fair, it was suggested for a monstrous campaign. so in that regard it would fit the tone just fine.

So what...everyone in the campaign is a tauric human half-lammasu?

[The Insanity]

So what...everyone in the campaign is a tauric human half-lammasu?
I don't think so. Everyone in the party would be some kind of monster, I assume.