[3.5] Earliest at-will continual flight?

[Particle_Man]

I am thinking an afflicted lycanthrope were-eagle (or were-hawk) can do it at ECL 4 (1 class level, 1 animal hd, +2 LA). More conventionally Warlocks can get Fell Flight at level 6.

Any ones I am missing? I don't mean "gliding" wings, but ones that can actually fly all day without the flier getting any more tired than walking all day.

[eggynack]

Level two, I think. You can apply the divine minion template (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/mb/20050209a) to any character, specifically divine minion of Isis, Nephthys, or Thoth for +1 LA, and all three allow you to wild shape into a bird form at will, as a free action, indefinitely.

[Know(Nothing)]

Are you looking for a class that grants it? Race? Spell? Item?

You could get a Feathered Wings graft from, I believe, Fiend Folio. Not sure if that's affordable/negotiable before Fell Flight, though.

[olentu]

Anthropomorphic bat (also raven) gets flight at 1 as I recall.

[Thurbane]

Winged template (Savage Species) on any race with no RHD or LA is ECL 3 at 1st level.

[eggynack]

Anthropomorphic bat (also raven) gets flight at 1 as I recall.
It is an odd thing indeed that I'd forgotten the ever-wonderful anthropomorphic bat, given the extent to which I extol its virtues. Ah well. But yeah, you get 20 ft. average off of the anthropomorphic bat, and it has no LA or RHD.

[Malroth]

Sparrow Hengyokai can do it at lv 1 with +1 or +0 LA depending which version you use

[Xaotiq1]

Incarnate (Magic of Incarnum) can get perfect flight w/ a 30ft speed by level 4 with Airstep Sandals. Your speed will increase incrementally as your essentia capacity goes up.

You'll want to choose a race that has an essentia pool already like the Azurin or Duskling, and the Expanded Soulmeld Capacity feat; but you'll get what you need.

[Zrak]

I'm not gonna lie, the main reason I look for high-op campaigns is to play anthropomorphic bat druids with dinosaur animal companions. Not even, like, because they're powerful, just because I think bats and dinosaurs and really cool and a weird little bat dude riding a dinosaur is even cooler.

[Particle_Man]

Incarnate (Magic of Incarnum) can get perfect flight w/ a 30ft speed by level 4 with Airstep Sandals. Your speed will increase incrementally as your essentia capacity goes up.

You'll want to choose a race that has an essentia pool already like the Azurin or Duskling, and the Expanded Soulmeld Capacity feat; but you'll get what you need.

I thought those guys had to land at the end of each round or they fell?

[Crake]

Winged template (Savage Species) on any race with no RHD or LA is ECL 3 at 1st level.

the petal race can (arguably) get flight for the same LA, but with a bunch of other goodies.

[Thurbane]

the petal race can (arguably) get flight for the same LA, but with a bunch of other goodies.
Technically not a playable race though (LA +2 cohort).

[shaikujin]

Do races and templates count? Any Ex, SLA, Su limitations?

Dragonborn with Wing Aspect gets it at level 6 without LA.

Unseelie Fey gets it with LA0.

Phaerimm hatchling at LA2 and 1 racial HD which can be replaced.

The 3 dragons of Faerun (Steel, Mercury and I forgot the 3rd) gets flight at ECL 5 (or is it earlier?).

Raptorian.

Avariel elves.

Is any of the above helpful?

[Particle_Man]

Well Raptorans have that dreaded "glide" thing on their wings until they get some HD under their belts.

The dragons were interesting. I guess one could add the Wyrmling White Dragon to the mix (3 HD, +2 LA) for completeness.

But yes, its all helpful.

I may retract my original afflicted lycanthrope as the control shape DCs are punitive for the character at low-level so I can't justifiably say it is at-will continual flight for a 2 HD character. Natural lycanthropes bump up the ECL to 5.

I hadn't even considered the Anthro. Bat, or some of these other options. Very interesting!

For some it would help to track down what books they may be found in. Avorial elves? Phaerimm hatchlings? Petals?

[Thurbane]

Petals = MM3
Avariel = Races of Faerun
Phaerimm = Lost Empires of Faerun

[Kelb_Panthera]

An air mephling gets 10ft (perfect) at ECL 2. A feat can improve that to 30 IIRC.

[Thurbane]

The Air Heritage feat in the same book as the Mephling (Planar Handbook) does indeed increase fly speed, although it's actually +30 to fly speed, so a total of 40ft in the case of an Air Mephling.

It's a very handy feat for any creature with an innate fly speed, in fact.

[137beth]

Throw yourself at the ground and miss roll a natural 1. Since your target was the ground, and not one square on the ground (as D&D doesn't normally allow you to target one square on a very large creature), you miss the world, and are therefore flying. This method of flight has no side effects or prerequisites, and is guaranteed to be mostly harmless.

[Curmudgeon]

I know you were being facetious, but you would actually be rolling to attack the ground, rather than just contact it. You can avoid dealing damage to the ground; this says nothing about avoiding contact with it.

[JeminiZero]

Hypothetically, Gliders (Raptoran, Dragonborn, Dragonblooded races with the Dragon Wings feat) can get pseudo-flight by level 3. Take 3 levels in Martial Adept class. On level 3, take Shadow Jaunt (whether normally as a Swordsage, or via the Extra Maneuver Known feat).

You can now teleport 50 ft straight up every other round. E.g. With Swordsage, you teleport up 50 ft as a standard then glide 5 ft down as a move, glide 10 feet down while recovering as a full round (double move), teleport up 50 ft again. Every 2 rounds, you can gain 35 ft. Repeat until you attain desired height. This effectively lets you glide all day.

Edit: actually, since Gloves of Shadow Hand grant maneuvers regardless of current level, this is actually doable for a level 1 Martial Adept, but requires more than WBL.

[137beth]

I know you were being facetious, but you would actually be rolling to attack the ground, rather than just contact it. You can avoid dealing damage to the ground; this says nothing about avoiding contact with it.

Is there a way you can make a body slam/something similar as a touch attack?:smalltongue:
More seriously, if PF material is allowed, Greater Drow Nobility gives ulimited Levitation (not exactly flight, but a lot of it), as well as several other sometimes-useful Sp abilities at-will. With flaws or other tricks, it is doable at level 1.

[cakellene]

Hypothetically, Gliders (Raptoran, Dragonborn, Dragonblooded races with the Dragon Wings feat) can get pseudo-flight by level 3. Take 3 levels in Martial Adept class. On level 3, take Shadow Jaunt (whether normally as a Swordsage, or via the Extra Maneuver Known feat).

You can now teleport 50 ft straight up every other round. E.g. With Swordsage, you teleport up 50 ft as a standard then glide 5 ft down as a move, glide 10 feet down while recovering as a full round (double move), teleport up 50 ft again. Every 2 rounds, you can gain 35 ft. Repeat until you attain desired height. This effectively lets you glide all day.

Edit: actually, since Gloves of Shadow Hand grant maneuvers regardless of current level, this is actually doable for a level 1 Martial Adept, but requires more than WBL.

Would you still be able to glide while doing full round action to recover the maneuver?

[Milo v3]

Can you bullrush the planet and miss? :smalltongue:

[JeminiZero]

Would you still be able to glide while doing full round action to recover the maneuver?
That's actually a good question.

I would argue yes, since gliding basically involves holding your wings still, while you focus your mind to recover your maneuvers... but the rules on what you can do while gliding are somewhat vague. GM might rule otherwise.

Alternatively use a Warblade and pick up Shadow Jaunt from Shadow Hand Gloves or Extra Maneuver known. They can recover as a swift action.

[Psyren]

I thought those guys had to land at the end of each round or they fell?

It's ambiguous and up to your DM really. MoI was unfortunately rushed out amid the anguished wails of the editor they threw in the broom closet so they could hit the printers.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Unseelie Fey has a 50-50 chance of giving you a fly speed of twice your base land speed for 0 LA.

[Particle_Man]

What book are unseelie fey? And I assume hengeyokai are oriental adventures?

[Karnith]

What book are unseelie fey? And I assume hengeyokai are oriental adventures?
Unseelie Fey are in Dragon Magazine #304, and yes (Hengeyokai were also updated in Dragon Magazine #318).

[OldTrees1]

That's actually a good question.

I would argue yes, since gliding basically involves holding your wings still, while you focus your mind to recover your maneuvers... but the rules on what you can do while gliding are somewhat vague. GM might rule otherwise.

Alternatively use a Warblade and pick up Shadow Jaunt from Shadow Hand Gloves or Extra Maneuver known. They can recover as a swift action.

Not quite so vague. Gliding is restricted Flying. So failing to have your minimum forward movement will cause you to stall (fall 150ft ft in the first round)

Now you could go:
Glide (move action)
Shadow Jaunt (standard action)

Glide (move action)
Begin recharge (standard action)

Complete recharge (standard action) [as per completing a full round action rules]
Glide (move action)

Result:
Glide 3 turns per 1 teleport
60ft forward, 15 ft down, 50ft teleport
OR
90ft forward, 30 ft down, 50ft teleport

[Curmudgeon]

Unseelie Fey are in Dragon Magazine #304, and yes (Hengeyokai were also updated in Dragon Magazine #318).
Dragon Compendium contains an updated version of the Unseelie Fey template. That book also has an Errata file. Together, they provide the 3.5 update for this template. Unseelie Fey is a pretty economical (LA +0, but then as a Fey you have the problem of not qualifying for the "Humanoids and Class Levels" (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/improvingMonsters.htm#humanoidsAndClassLevels) exchange) way to get flight, assuming you don't mind the "always Evil" alignment stipulation.

[Legendxp]

Aren't "Always Evil" creatures, players, monsters, and societies actually only around 60% evil? I read somewhere that when it says "Always Evil" it doesn't actually mean 100% of the population is evil. I'd have to find it again and it might take awhile.

[MesiDoomstalker]

Aren't "Always Evil" creatures, players, monsters, and societies actually only around 60% evil? I read somewhere that when it says "Always Evil" it doesn't actually mean 100% of the population is evil. I'd have to find it again and it might take awhile.

Its in the Monster Manual I believe and the figure is actually 95%. So overwhelming majority, but not 100% to be sure. The point is anything that isn't listed that alignment is a special case, not the norm. Usually [whatever] would be closer to the 60% [whatever] figure.

[Karnith]

Its in the Monster Manual I believe and the figure is actually 95%.
There is no figure given for "Always X," actually. What's written suggests (to me, anyway) that exceptions to "Always X" are even rarer than 5%. Per the Monster Manual:

Always: The creature is born with the indicated alignment. The creature may have a hereditary predisposition to the alignment or come from a plane that predetermines it. It is possible for individuals to change alignment, but such individuals are either unique or rare exceptions.
From that same page, "Usually" means more than 50%, and "Often" means 40-50%.

[MesiDoomstalker]

I stand corrected on specifics, but the important part is the same. Always is not always, simply the vast majority.

[Heliomance]

What about winged elves from FR?


Technically not a playable race though (LA +2 cohort).

If we really want to split hairs, nowhere does it actually state that "cohort" in an LA entry means that that race is only allowed for cohorts. That word "cohort" in there is, I'm pretty sure, entirely meaningless by strictest RAW. As undefined rules text, it carries the same amount of weight as Rope Trick stating that taking an extradimensional space inside it is "hazardous" without defining hazardous.

[nedz]

For completeness: Half-Fey via Savage Progressions at ECL 2

[Thurbane]

Dragon Compendium contains an updated version of the Unseelie Fey template. That book also has an Errata file. Together, they provide the 3.5 update for this template. Unseelie Fey is a pretty economical (LA +0, but then as a Fey you have the problem of not qualifying for the "Humanoids and Class Levels" (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/improvingMonsters.htm#humanoidsAndClassLevels) exchange) way to get flight, assuming you don't mind the "always Evil" alignment stipulation.
If you have a DM who will let you take a template as cheesy as Unseelie Fey for LA+0, I think it's safe to assume he will likely hand-wave the questionable RAW regarding only humanoids being able to swap out 1 racial HD for a class level.

If we really want to split hairs, nowhere does it actually state that "cohort" in an LA entry means that that race is only allowed for cohorts. That word "cohort" in there is, I'm pretty sure, entirely meaningless by strictest RAW. As undefined rules text, it carries the same amount of weight as Rope Trick stating that taking an extradimensional space inside it is "hazardous" without defining hazardous.
That's...interesting. I don't know any DM that would let that pass personally, but still interesting.

[Heliomance]

That's...interesting. I don't know any DM that would let that pass personally, but still interesting.

If I was running a game high-op or weird enough that non-(humanoid, 0 LA, 1HD) races were on the table, I'd allow it in a heartbeat. It's a strong race, but if you're allowing players to take unconventional races at all, I see no reason why the Petal should be excluded.

[Curmudgeon]

I stand corrected on specifics, but the important part is the same. Always is not always, simply the vast majority.
No, it's everyone.
Always: The creature is born with the indicated alignment. We're talking an inherited template. The character must start (be born) as Evil. The character can change alignment later, but it's born as Evil 100% of the time.

If you have a DM who will let you take a template as cheesy as Unseelie Fey for LA+0, I think it's safe to assume he will likely hand-wave the questionable RAW regarding only humanoids being able to swap out 1 racial HD for a class level.
I hew pretty close to the written rules. Unseelie Fey is a powerful template, but it's RAW. So are the rules about Humanoids and Class Levels, and the alignment specification associated with an inherited template. If you want the power, you get the consequences: all by RAW; no hand-waving.

[Thurbane]

I still maintain that the RAW on non-humanoids and swapping out HD for a class level isn't as cut and dried as all that.

[TuggyNE]

I still maintain that the RAW on non-humanoids and swapping out HD for a class level isn't as cut and dried as all that.

It's not, but the counter-examples are a little hard to find (which has annoyed me in the past).
Level Adjustment and Effective Character Level
To determine the effective character level (ECL) of a monster character, add its level adjustment to its racial Hit Dice and character class levels.

Use ECL instead of character level to determine how many experience points a monster character needs to reach its next level. Also use ECL to determine starting wealth for a monster character.

Monster characters treat skills mentioned in their monster entry as class skills.

If a monster has 1 Hit Die or less, or if it is a template creature, it must start the game with one or more class levels, like a regular character. If a monster has 2 or more Hit Dice, it can start with no class levels (though it can gain them later).

Since the underlined text applies to all monsters of any type (the header says nothing about Humanoids, one way or another), and since the way a regular character starts the game with one or more class levels is by trading in their first RHD, it seems that all monsters, of any type, must trade in their RHD if they have only one or fewer. Thus, the rules for Pixies etc are merely reminders of this general rule, not exceptions.

[Curmudgeon]

That's certainly an odd entry in the SRD. The corresponding section in Monster Manual (pages 290-291), from which this is supposed to be derived, doesn't say anything like that.

[Spuddles]

What about pets?

A druid goblin or other small race could ride around on his dire bat, for instance. Do it at level 1 with natural bond.

[nedz]

That's certainly an odd entry in the SRD. The corresponding section in Monster Manual (pages 290-291), from which this is supposed to be derived, doesn't say anything like that.

It's also contradicted by Savage Progressions FWIW.

[Thurbane]

If I was running a game high-op or weird enough that non-(humanoid, 0 LA, 1HD) races were on the table, I'd allow it in a heartbeat. It's a strong race, but if you're allowing players to take unconventional races at all, I see no reason why the Petal should be excluded.
Oh, I didn't mean Petal in particular, just the whole "LA X - cohort" not being properly defined.

[Karnith]

That's certainly an odd entry in the SRD. The corresponding section in Monster Manual (pages 290-291), from which this is supposed to be derived, doesn't say anything like that.
It's from the Dungeon Mater's Guide, p. 172, which is the DMG's section on monster characters.
Oh boy, time for primary source rules!
The SRD's section on monster characters is one of the places where the SRD compiled rules from different sources into one place, which makes tracking down the corresponding rules in the actual books annoying.

[Talya]

What about winged elves from FR?


those would be the previously mentioned Averiel.


technically a lesser Aasimar or tiefling can get winged flight at level one, with no LA, but...
a feat requirement means you'd need flaws, and the base saves requirement makes only a few classes qualify that early.

[Shining Wrath]

Binder, forget the vestige, gets you flight early.
Incarnate soulmelds.

[Psyren]

I think "humanoid" there refers more to shape (i.e. bipedal intelligent 1HD race) rather than "Humanoid" as in creature type. Otherwise we would have Elans and Synads running around with 1 Aberration HD, Warforged with 1 Construct HD, Dusklings with 1 Fey HD etc. None of those are strictly humanoids but Tuggy's rule definitely applies to them too.

[Talya]

Don't forget the signature race that's a posterchild for the first racial HD replacement - is very much not humanoid in type: The Pixie.

[killem2]

I think the best at will flight is probably Anthro Bat + Improved Flight so you can hover.

[The Viscount]

Binder, forget the vestige, gets you flight early.
Incarnate soulmelds.

Geryon's flight is only 1/5 rounds, so it's not really very reliable flight. It's flight...of a sort, but will end up functioning much more like super-leaping.

[AlltheBooks]

I think most of the races and templates have been mentioned, though I didn't see gloaming +2 LA.

[Curmudgeon]

It's from the Dungeon Mater's Guide, p. 172, which is the DMG's section on monster characters.
Oh boy, time for primary source rules!
Well, since you said it's time:
Errata Rule: Primary Sources

When you find a disagreement between two D&D® rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct. One example of a primary/secondary source is text taking precedence over a table entry. An individual spell description takes precedence when the short description in the beginning of the spells chapter disagrees.

Another example of primary vs. secondary sources involves book and topic precedence. The Player's Handbook, for example, gives all the rules for playing the game, for playing PC races, and for using base class descriptions. If you find something on one of those topics from the Dungeon Master's Guide or the Monster Manual that disagrees with the Player's Handbook, you should assume the Player's Handbook is the primary source. The Dungeon Master's Guide is the primary source for topics such as magic item descriptions, special material construction rules, and so on. The Monster Manual is the primary source for monster descriptions, templates, and supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities.

The SRD's section on monster characters is one of the places where the SRD compiled rules from different sources into one place, which makes tracking down the corresponding rules in the actual books annoying.
Since the DMG differs from the primary source (MM) here, we now know how to resolve this disagreement. Thanks for doing the legwork, Karnith!

[Talya]

Well, since you said it's time:

Since the DMG differs from the primary source (MM) here, we now know how to resolve this disagreement. Thanks for doing the legwork, Karnith!

Out of curiosity, where does the "Rules Compendium" fit into that? (not that I know of a reference in that book to clarify this discussion.)

[olentu]

Well, since you said it's time:

Since the DMG differs from the primary source (MM) here, we now know how to resolve this disagreement. Thanks for doing the legwork, Karnith!

There does not seem to be any disagreement between the two. The monster manual says "Creatures with 1 or less HD replace their monster levels with their character levels." While the name of the section is called humanoids with class levels the actual rule is phrased so that it applies to all creatures.

[Thurbane]

There does not seem to be any disagreement between the two. The monster manual says "Creatures with 1 or less HD replace their monster levels with their character levels." While the name of the section is called humanoids with class levels the actual rule is phrased so that it applies to all creatures.
I completely concur.

Curmudgeon - out of interest, what is your stance on "LA +X cohort", as to the term cohort not being defined? By RAW, are these creatures playable as PCs without DM fiat or houseruling?

[TuggyNE]

Well, since you said it's time:

Since the DMG differs from the primary source (MM) here, we now know how to resolve this disagreement. Thanks for doing the legwork, Karnith!

There is no disagreement. The MM says that humanoids must replace their first level*, and the DMG says that playable monsters must also replace their first level*. Of course, a monster that is not playable and is not humanoid need not do so, but for purposes of this thread and most others, that's moot.

I'm glad we've finally cleared this out, because it was really bugging me.

*Iff they have only one or fewer HD, of course.


There does not seem to be any disagreement between the two. The monster manual says "Creatures with 1 or less HD replace their monster levels with their character levels." While the name of the section is called humanoids with class levels the actual rule is phrased so that it applies to all creatures.

That's not actually the section I'm relying on, since Curmudgeon believes headers to be not only rules-relevant, but to take priority over the text. However, in either case, it certainly does not say "Humanoids, and only humanoids …", so it's plain that there is no possible disagreement in the source.

For that matter, looking at the Savage Progressions articles, I'm having trouble finding the apparent disagreement there (though of course, per primary source, those articles would be pretty low on the totem pole). Anyone mind enlightening me on that?

[olentu]

That's not actually the section I'm relying on, since Curmudgeon believes headers to be not only rules-relevant, but to take priority over the text. However, in either case, it certainly does not say "Humanoids, and only humanoids …", so it's plain that there is no possible disagreement in the source.

For that matter, looking at the Savage Progressions articles, I'm having trouble finding the apparent disagreement there (though of course, per primary source, those articles would be pretty low on the totem pole). Anyone mind enlightening me on that?

Oh I know that, but when someone makes an argument that is completely based on an unwritten rule I sometimes (though not always) feel the desire to present an opposing position. Sure I can probably not convince the person presenting the argument based on the unwritten rule but perhaps I can sway the undecided.

Edit: And to be clear, this is not some sort of simple disagreement about common English formatting or something, it is a case of an unwritten rule. The definition of creature in the PHB is "A living or otherwise active being, not an object." That means that if the passage is being taken to have creature = humanoid it is in conflict with the PHB. Now this could be resolved in favor of the MM through application of specific rules overriding general rules or perhaps the primary source rule, but both of those apply to rules, thus necessitating an unwritten rule.

[Roga]

Druid with the Shapechanger Variant from Player's Handbook II gets an at-will flying form at 5th level. It replaces Normal Wild Shape and Animal Companion though.

[Rastapopolos]

If your allowing lesser planetouched, then i have to put my oar in for lesser fey'ri, LA0 flight at first level plus your pick of some very tasty abilities. Oh and alter self at will.

[cakellene]

If your allowing lesser planetouched, then i have to put my oar in for lesser fey'ri, LA0 flight at first level plus your pick of some very tasty abilities. Oh and alter self at will.

Source? (Stupid message length limits)

[Ruethgar]

A little off topic, but why do people praise the anthropomorphic bat over the raven? The raven gets better stats after all, even if at the same slow 20ft flight speed. -6 Str, +2 Dex, +6 Wis.

[eggynack]

A little off topic, but why do people praise the anthropomorphic bat over the raven? The raven gets better stats after all, even if at the same slow 20ft flight speed. -6 Str, +2 Dex, +6 Wis.
Raven appears to be -6 strength, +2 dexterity, +4 wisdom, and -4 charisma, at least as it's listed in the book. It should possibly be listed differently, on the basis of the stat adjustments listed being applied to the raven in the MM, but the stats listed in the table are almost certainly the reason for the bat preference.

[Kuulvheysoon]

Source? (Stupid message length limits)

It's the Lesser Planethouced (template?) presented in the Player's Guide to Faerun. It's only shown with the +1 LA ones (genasi, aasimar, tieflings) and it doesn't mention anything about the ones with a LA greater than one, such as the gloamings, shadowswyfts or the aforementioned fey'ri,.

[Curmudgeon]

There does not seem to be any disagreement between the two. The monster manual says "Creatures with 1 or less HD replace their monster levels with their character levels." While the name of the section is called humanoids with class levels the actual rule is phrased so that it applies to all creatures.
If there were a single instance of this rule I might agree that there's some possible ambiguity. However, this rule appears in three places:

The Humanoids and Class Levels paragraph, mentioned above (Monster Manual, page 290).
Humanoid type entry under DETERMINING THE MONSTER’S TYPE (Monster Manual, page 295). This entry is clearly specific to the type of creature:
Humanoids with 1 Hit Die exchange the features of their humanoid Hit Die for the class features of a PC or NPC class.
Humanoid Type Glossary entry (Monster Manual, page 310). Again, there is no allowance for types other than Humanoid:
Humanoids with 1 Hit Die exchange the features of their humanoid Hit Die for the class features of a PC or NPC class.
If you check the entries for the other 14 D&D creature types, which appear in both the DETERMINING THE MONSTER’S TYPE section and the Glossary, you'll find that this 1 HD exchange rule is specific to Humanoid type creatures.

Under the heading of Humanoids and Class Levels, the only creatures being discussed are already established as Humanoids. An attempt to read type ambiguity into this one of the three repetitions of the Humanoids and Class Levels rule, which necessarily requires ignoring the other two instances, is intellectually dishonest.

[olentu]

If there were a single instance of this rule I might agree that there's some possible ambiguity. However, this rule appears in three places:

The Humanoids and Class Levels paragraph, mentioned above (Monster Manual, page 290).
Humanoid type entry under DETERMINING THE MONSTER’S TYPE (Monster Manual, page 295). This entry is clearly specific to the type of creature:
Humanoid Type Glossary entry (Monster Manual, page 310). Again, there is no allowance for types other than Humanoid:
If you check the entries for the other 14 D&D creature types, which appear in both the DETERMINING THE MONSTER’S TYPE section and the Glossary, you'll find that this 1 HD exchange rule is specific to Humanoid type creatures.

Under the heading of Humanoids and Class Levels, the only creatures being discussed are already established as Humanoids. An attempt to read type ambiguity into this one of the three repetitions of the Humanoids and Class Levels rule, which necessarily requires ignoring the other two instances, is intellectually dishonest.

Yeah, so those rules are not actually the same thing. You might think they are the same thing but that is only if you are assuming your conclusion that creature=humanoid is already true (also some other things but assuming the conclusion is already more then bad enough) which is improper. That means your claim that the rules are a repetition is just something you made up. Thus the basis of your new argument breaks down and you are right back where you were.

You are trying to contradict a rule, and that means unwritten supposed implication is not good enough.

[Curmudgeon]

Yeah, so those rules are not actually the same thing. You might think they are the same thing but that is only if you are assuming your conclusion that creature=humanoid is already true ...
No, it's based on thorough reading of all the rules for every creature type in both sections of the Monster Manual I noted in my last post. The Humanoid type commands an exchange for the first class level where the creature has 1 racial HD; no other creature type does so. This examination of all the type sections clears up any ambiguity in the single paragraph which is at issue: the header of "Humanoids and Class Levels" is specific to exactly the type it says. The conclusion is derived from the RAW.

[olentu]

No, it's based on thorough reading of all the rules for every creature type in both sections of the Monster Manual I noted in my last post. The Humanoid type commands an exchange for the first class level where the creature has 1 racial HD; no other creature type does so. This examination of all the type sections clears up any ambiguity in the single paragraph which is at issue: the header of "Humanoids and Class Levels" is specific to exactly the type it says. The conclusion is derived from the RAW.

Look this "Creatures with 1 or less HD replace their monster levels with their character levels." is not the same as this "Humanoids with 1 Hit Die exchange the features of their humanoid Hit Die for the class features of a PC or NPC class."

They are not the same because creatures is not the same as humanoids. Creature is defined as "A living or otherwise active being, not an object." and not all living or otherwise active beings are humanoids. To contradict that rule you would need another actual rule, but all you have given is unwritten supposed implication. The two rules are not the same.

They are not the same because 1 or less HD is not 1 Hit Die. One or less is not equal to one in all cases. The two rules are not the same.

They are not the same because "replace their monster levels with their character levels" is not the same as "exchange the features of their humanoid Hit Die." The second means that the 1 HD humanoid does not actually have a level in the class, but rather has a racial HD. This would matter for anything that counts levels in a class since the humanoid HD is not a level in that class. If they ever gain a level in a class the HD would be replaced by the first rule, but that requires the first rule. The two rules are not the same.


The rules are not the same. Any one of those differences would be enough and you have not even managed to disprove the first. Your attempt to disprove the first by claiming the rules are the same is a case of assuming the conclusion of your argument. It is circular reasoning.

[TuggyNE]

No, it's based on thorough reading of all the rules for every creature type in both sections of the Monster Manual I noted in my last post. The Humanoid type commands an exchange for the first class level where the creature has 1 racial HD; no other creature type does so. This examination of all the type sections clears up any ambiguity in the single paragraph which is at issue: the header of "Humanoids and Class Levels" is specific to exactly the type it says. The conclusion is derived from the RAW.

Here's what we've got. We've got two places where the rules say specifically that humanoids swap their first RHD iff they have one RHD*. We have one place where it says that creatures swap their first RHD iff they have one or fewer RHD**. And then we have one place where it says that monstrous characters swap their first RHD iff they have one or fewer RHD. None of these places say that any type is the only type that does that, or that the conditions outlined by those specific rules are the only way to do that, or that those specific rules are the only ones that apply to swapping; rather, they indicate, as normal for D&D, a particular set of permissive rules. Permissive rules are combined by union, not intersection, and the union of those three groups is pretty clear: All humanoids, and also all monstrous characters, and presumably even all creatures, swap their first RHD for a class level iff they have one or fewer RHD. (There are no humanoids with fractional HD that I am aware of, so the distinction doesn't appear to matter.)

From this conclusion we can then backtrack and determine that the apparent lack of ambiguity was a premature conclusion: the header could be misleading, or the text could be. Neither changes the actual full RAW, of course, but on balance, intentionally reusing the same header to say different things in the same book seems stranger than doing so accidentally while reusing the same outline for rules for slightly different sets of characters.

*Thanks to olentu for correcting my initial error before I posted; I'd assumed it was one or fewer.
**Caught immediately after posting.

[Psyren]

I'm with eggy - It has to be "creatures," otherwise Elans would be running around with 1 aberration die, Warforged would be running around with 1 construct die, Dusklings would be running around with 1 fey die etc.

[Scow2]

I stand corrected on specifics, but the important part is the same. Always is not always, simply the vast majority.If the alignment is in italics, it IS always.

The percentage is 99.9999% (1 in a million), at least. All the "Not always" examples are saying is "It's not violating sacred rules to have a Nonevil player character or Special Snowflake NPC of a different alignment."

[OldTrees1]

If the alignment is in italics, it IS always.

The percentage is 99.9999% (1 in a million), at least. All the "Not always" examples are saying is "It's not violating sacred rules to have a Nonevil player character or Special Snowflake NPC of a different alignment."

Question: Where are alignments in italics? Not even the Angels and Fiends of the MM have that.

When the monster type stat block lists "Alignment: Always ____" it means almost always _____. The precise percentage (0.0001% or 0.00000001%) does not matter as much as the fact that the percentage is non 0.

[Scow2]

Question: Where are alignments in italics? Not even the Angels and Fiends of the MM have that.

When the monster type stat block lists "Alignment: Always ____" it means almost always _____. The precise percentage (0.0001% or 0.00000001%) does not matter as much as the fact that the percentage is non 0....must have been strictly a 3.0 thing (I have the 3.5 SRD, but only 3.0 MM).

The percentage is 0 as far as anyone's concerned to any reasonable number.

[OldTrees1]

...must have been strictly a 3.0 thing (I have the 3.5 SRD, but only 3.0 MM).

The percentage is 0 as far as anyone's concerned to any reasonable number.

I did not know your name was anyone.
As far as the rules are concerned, the percentage is non 0.
[Very important considering the mechanical rules about redemption and corruption]
As far as many DMs are concerned, the percentage is non 0.

[Talionis]

I thought those guys had to land at the end of each round or they fell?

Air Step sandals unbound, you have to land each round, but once bound to your feet it grants perfect flight.

[Pickford]

If I'm reading this correctly, the dispute revolves around this question: Do playable races with types other than Humanoid, and which also have 1 or less RHD, replace that HD with their first class level?

To try and resolve this, I'm browsing the SRD20's list of playable races:

XPH:
Dromite (Monstrous Humanoid) - replaces
Elan (Aberration) - replaces
Half-Giant (Giant) - replaces

MM:
Aasimar (Outsider) - replaces
Tiefling (Outsider) - replaces

(Note, these inherited templates change the type, but all the examples have exactly as many HD as character levels, no RHD and consisted of Half-Human variants)
Half-Celestial (Outsider) - replaces
Half-Dragon (Dragon) - replaces
Half-Fiend (Outsider) - replaces

Pixie (Fey) - "A pixie character exchanges its 1 HD of fey for its first class level"

Grig and Nixie would presumably function identically as they are in the same boat as the Pixie.

Although I agree the MM's text is only speaking about humanoids, in practice it would appear WoTC used this as a rule for all potential player character races. (i.e. if <=1RHD, it is replaced for the first class level)

I found no other examples of <= 1 RHD creatures showing class levels.

[TuggyNE]

In order to disseminate the result of the side discussion in this thread, I started a new thread specifically for that purpose.

[Hurnn]

Throw yourself at the ground and miss roll a natural 1. Since your target was the ground, and not one square on the ground (as D&D doesn't normally allow you to target one square on a very large creature), you miss the world, and are therefore flying. This method of flight has no side effects or prerequisites, and is guaranteed to be mostly harmless.

best discription of flight ever, just dont forget to pack your towel.

[Tessman the 2nd]

Winged Incarnate Construct Warforged with 17 dexterity:
50ft perfect flight at ECL 1

[OldTrees1]

Winged Incarnate Construct Warforged with 17 dexterity:
50ft perfect flight at ECL 1

Error: Winged cannot be inherited by a Warforged before Incarnate Construct is acquired.

Winged cannot be applied to Constructs