Unseelie Fey... OverPowered?

[GhengisConrad]

Trading Strength and Con for Dex and Char... not the most useful.

Iron Vulnerability, definitely a problem early on... but later, really?

Doesn't seem like gaining a scaling undead turn, or awesome unfatigue buff ; and of course... WINGS... as a fair trade.

Sell me on this. Why is this not as unbalanced as I think it is?

[Zweisteine]

It is as unbalanced as you think it is.

It should have LA, but it doesn't, putting it in the category of "optimizes worst enemy."
It's powerful enough that a DM will ban it or add LA, and too cheesy to use in theoretical optimization, so it's a godly powerful template that you can never use.

And then fighters, who need the most love, lose many of its benefits because they need strength, constitution, and metal.

[Zanos]

It is as unbalanced as you think it is.

It should have LA, but it doesn't, putting it in the category of "optimizes worst enemy."
It's powerful enough that a DM will ban it or add LA, and too cheesy to use in theoretical optimization, so it's a godly powerful template that you can never use.

And then fighters, who need the most love, lose many of its benefits because they need strength, constitution, and metal.

Nothing is too cheesy for TO.

But yeah, unseelie fey is way too good for LA 0.

[GhengisConrad]

So the reason everyone doesn't put it in their build is because of... pride?

[eggynack]

Well, that, and it looks like it's from dragon magazine. Dragon stuff tends to teeter on that razor's edge between first party and third party, accepted as official by some, dismissed as hogwash by others, and viewed with a mixture of vague interest and ambivalence by some third group. Thus, it doesn't see much build use. The overpowered aspect is also a factor, as it's just a blatantly broken little race.

[Piggy Knowles]

Also, the fact that it's LA +0 is kind of iffy. The template itself doesn't list any LA (which would ordinarily mean either they forgot to include a level adjustment or it's unsuitable for players). The +0 LA comes from the sample character, and even in more reputable sourcebooks than Dragon Magazine Compendium, sample characters are often full of mistakes. When I compare it to the Seelie Fey in the same sourcebook, I tend to think that the +0 LA is more a case of bad editing than actual author intent.

(Which isn't to say that authors can't intentionally create an overpowered template... even if it was totally on the up and up, from a more reputable sourcebook and with the LA clearly printed on the template itself, it would still be borked.)

[eggynack]

Ah, it's in dragon magazine compendium? That's a lot more first party then. In that case, the reason is probably how borked the template is. It wouldn't be that bad as a race, but it costs basically nothing to toss a massive pile of stuff onto any given character.

[Crake]

Also, the fact that it's LA +0 is kind of iffy. The template itself doesn't list any LA (which would ordinarily mean either they forgot to include a level adjustment or it's unsuitable for players). The +0 LA comes from the sample character, and even in more reputable sourcebooks than Dragon Magazine Compendium, sample characters are often full of mistakes. When I compare it to the Seelie Fey in the same sourcebook, I tend to think that the +0 LA is more a case of bad editing than actual author intent.

Actually, the template, as all other templates do, say that you use the base creature's statistics except where noted in the template description. The fact that it doesn't have an LA section simply means it uses the base creature's LA, with no change to it.

[Zweisteine]

It's not really pride, so much as a sense of fairness.

Unless a TOed build relies directly on something of such high-level cheese, you avoid using it because it's unfair, in a way. You rarely see builds with venerable dragonwrought kobolds for the same reason; it's too good to use.

[Dread_Head]

It's an incredibly good template, far too good to be LA0 in fact, my DM gave it to me as LA0 after it lost the vision, flight, scaling DR and seasonal power, and it's still pretty worthwhile.

Edit: basically it is unbalanced for all the reasons you think it is and you'd need a very RAW DM or one who gives a lot of leeway in builds for it to be usable at the LA0 it's given in Dragon Compendium.

Edit Edit: the reason isn't necessarily pride, a lot of builds won't find the benefits worth the drop in strength and con or won't be optimising around the use of a seasonal power (particularly the winter one) but it is very worthwhile for a lot of builds, pretty much to the point where no sane DM would let it stand at LA0.

[MesiDoomstalker]

Another reason is simply fluff. Most people don't want their every character turned into a creature of the Fey.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

Also the fact that it includes random rolls for abilities. Depending one of those abilities is like depending on a specific magic item in a game that's been specified as magic-mart free.

[A_S]

Also the fact that it includes random rolls for abilities. Depending one of those abilities is like depending on a specific magic item in a game that's been specified as magic-mart free.
Weirdly, even this is ambiguous. The wings say "Select the wings or roll randomly (see the table below):" The vision modes seem like you are supposed to roll for them.

The whole template seems like it was written without considering the possibilities that a player would ever try and use it, rather than a DM.

[Curmudgeon]

In a lot of games, the "Always Evil" factor may be off-putting. As an inherited template there's no getting around this. The Unseelie Fey character may evolve to some other alignment over time, but it will always start as Evil.

[OldTrees1]

In a lot of games, the "Always Evil" factor may be off-putting. As an inherited template there's no getting around this. The Unseelie Fey character may evolve to some other alignment over time, but it will always start as Evil.

Note: Always and start have nonstandard uses here.
Monster Manual describes the frequency of a creature not sharing the alignment its race "always" has.
Savage Species gives explicit permission for PCs to start as alignments other than there race's default alignment (especially in the case of "always").

[Mithril Leaf]

It is as unbalanced as you think it is.

It should have LA, but it doesn't, putting it in the category of "optimizes worst enemy."
It's powerful enough that a DM will ban it or add LA, and too cheesy to use in theoretical optimization, so it's a godly powerful template that you can never use.

And then fighters, who need the most love, lose many of its benefits because they need strength, constitution, and metal.

I frequently use it, both in my builds and the builds I help my players with. If you allow spellcasting, this is whole-heartedly less broken than most of that.

[Maginomicon]

Replace “beast” with “plant” for the
summer caress ability.
Add line, “Challenge Rating: As base creature +1”
Keep in mind that any reasonable GM won't let you select the wings, he'll make you roll randomly for them, and the wings have a 50% chance of being non-existent or unusable. This means that if you try to play an Unseelie Fey and fail the roll at character creation, your GM has no reason to let you reroll it, even if you build a "new character" (wink wink nudge nudge). It's identical to the situation of claiming that you rolled four 18s. It isn't going to... fly. (yeaaaaaaaaaah)

[GhengisConrad]

Keep in mind that any reasonable GM won't let you select the wings, he'll make you roll randomly for them, and the wings have a 50% chance of being non-existent or unusable. This means that if you try to play an Unseelie Fey and fail the roll at character creation, your GM has no reason to let you reroll it, even if you build a "new character" (wink wink nudge nudge). It's identical to the situation of claiming that you rolled four 18s. It isn't going to... fly. (yeaaaaaaaaaah)

lol, I can't believe people actually play that way. We are constantly changing stats, equipment, spells known, classes, races mid-game if/when we realize we'd enjoy playing as something else... but we're also a bunch of rule-lawyer optimizer types. Roleplaying is just a vehicle to stage battles for us.

'Roll for' is just another way of saying 'use the average or pick whatever you want' for any outside of battle choice/effect.

I simply can't imagine someone being forced to play with a character they are less-than-happy with, and not being a grumpy sour-puss.

But then again, socially, we are a bunch of autistic 5 year olds too.

[Curmudgeon]

Note: Always and start have nonstandard uses here. No, they don't.

Monster Manual describes the frequency of a creature not sharing the alignment its race "always" has.
You're in the wrong context. That's a rule for creature alignment, but this is a template alignment issue. There aren't any funky conditional statements about what "always" means for template changes.

Sometimes, even in D&D, words just mean what they mean. :smallbiggrin:

[kardar233]

I like using Unseelie Fey because I like Fear-based melee builds, so Winter's Chill and the Charisma increase are very helpful. It's quite a powerful template, but mundanes get more use out of it than casters, as it gives them tools that they would otherwise find it difficult to acquire, such as flight, and immunity to charm and compulsion.

[TuggyNE]

You're in the wrong context. That's a rule for creature alignment, but this is a template alignment issue. There aren't any funky conditional statements about what "always" means for template changes.

Anything with a template* is a creature, and the only function templates serve is to modify the stats of a creature. I don't think the distinction you're making here is at all supported by the rules. :smallconfused:


*Barring possible misnomers that use different mechanics and are unrelated.

[Spuddles]

In a lot of games, the "Always Evil" factor may be off-putting. As an inherited template there's no getting around this. The Unseelie Fey character may evolve to some other alignment over time, but it will always start as Evil.

Good thing that unseelie's alignment has absolutely no restrictions on how you play your character.

[TuggyNE]

Good thing that unseelie's alignment has absolutely no restrictions on how you play your character.

:smallconfused: You mean besides not being able to start out as a paladin, having to overcome justifiable concerns your potential party members might have about you, etc?

[Vaz]

Also, the fact that it's LA +0 is kind of iffy. The template itself doesn't list any LA (which would ordinarily mean either they forgot to include a level adjustment or it's unsuitable for players). The +0 LA comes from the sample character, and even in more reputable sourcebooks than Dragon Magazine Compendium, sample characters are often full of mistakes. When I compare it to the Seelie Fey in the same sourcebook, I tend to think that the +0 LA is more a case of bad editing than actual author intent.

(Which isn't to say that authors can't intentionally create an overpowered template... even if it was totally on the up and up, from a more reputable sourcebook and with the LA clearly printed on the template itself, it would still be borked.)

I think the argument comes from the fact that the template doesn't have a listed LA, (as opposed to LA; -) and as per the Monster manual, missing entries in templates refer to the base creatures entry, hence LA+0.

Not saying it's correct, RAI, or whatever, but RAW, that's what it is. Then again, so it Drown healing.

And IIRC, "always evil" refers to 99% of the time, rather than "always evil", or something to that effect? Or was that something someone wrote and "houseruled"?

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=59153

[Heliomance]

The best way I've heard it described is that in D&D, 'always' means 'until a PC does it'.

[nedz]

:smallconfused: You mean besides not being able to start out as a paladin, having to overcome justifiable concerns your potential party members might have about you, etc?

Just double wield scimitars — you'll be fine.

[Zweisteine]

Keep in mind that any reasonable GM won't let you select the wings, he'll make you roll randomly for them, and the wings have a 50% chance of being non-existent or unusable.
Wrong.
The text of the template specifically states "select the wings or roll randomly." For TO purposes, that means exactly what it says. RAW specifically states that you can choose to roll, so that's what it does, in theory or in practice (though I do believe that you have to roll for vision).

Also, what a reasonable DM is more likely to do is give the template LA. Personally, I'd give it +1 with no wings, or +2 with wings, but bump maneuverability up to good. It's still really good, but not game-breakingly so.

[Piggy Knowles]

I think the argument comes from the fact that the template doesn't have a listed LA, (as opposed to LA; -) and as per the Monster manual, missing entries in templates refer to the base creatures entry, hence LA+0.


Actually, the template, as all other templates do, say that you use the base creature's statistics except where noted in the template description. The fact that it doesn't have an LA section simply means it uses the base creature's LA, with no change to it.

By that argument, the paragon creature template in the ELH is also LA +0 and fair game for optimization. Can't wait to start adding that one to all my builds!

[Gemini476]

By that argument, the paragon creature template in the ELH is also LA +0 and fair game for optimization. Can't wait to start adding that one to all my builds!

3E books had different layout. I believe that the actual LA was +11 or so? They have a Paragon Mindflayer with a listed ECL, IIRC.

[Vaz]

That's where Piggy is coming from though, and runs into a Primary Source versus... well, Extrapolated Source.

On the other hand, you're dealing with ELH which I see as more of a Dungeon Masters kit, and I'm lairy of allowing my players access to even the epic skill usages, as it's not hard to pump skill boosts up to that level.

[TuggyNE]

3E books had different layout. I believe that the actual LA was +11 or so? They have a Paragon Mindflayer with a listed ECL, IIRC.

You're really pinning your hopes on an example character from a 3.0 source? Really?

[Maginomicon]

For TO purposes, that means exactly what it says.This is essentially the same as trying to argue what methodology GMs use to roll ability scores (random) versus point buy (selecting) is "reasonable". That's not good enough. Whenever anyone says "a reasonable GM", it's always Practical Optimization, not Theoretical Optimization. In PO, a reasonable GM would look at this template, see that it's powerful, notice that it has a built-in balancing mechanic of having to roll to determine the wings, and use that.

[Amphetryon]

This is essentially the same as trying to argue what methodology GMs use to roll ability scores (random) versus point buy (selecting) is "reasonable". That's not good enough. Whenever anyone says "a reasonable GM", it's always Practical Optimization, not Theoretical Optimization. In PO, a reasonable GM would look at this template, see that it's powerful, notice that it has a built-in balancing mechanic of having to roll to determine the wings, and use that.

Your definition of "reasonable" is noted, but not necessarily a universal.

[Bonzai]

Winter's chill is insanely powerful. I had a Hexblade build that could debuff saves by a -16. Add in unseelie fey, and that can easily get boosted to a -29. (18 starting Charisma, +2 racial, +5 ability increases, +5 from a tome, +6 enhancement= 36 charisma with a modifier of +13). Even just a flat out -13 without the hexblade is pretty darn potent without a level adjustment.

[fail_deadly]

If it doesn't have a printed level adjustment it isn't suitable for Players

This is the same with playing unusual races. Level Adjustment, when it is given, is a measurement of the disparity between that particular race or template, with an average Player Character.

When it isn't given, which is the case with this template, then it's not suitable for using as a player character. It's that easy.

It's why you can't take the Paragon Template, or play as a race with low HD but very high CR, with "no level adjustment".

Unseelie Fey is not meant for a Player Character. Try Half-Fey Template instead, for a +2 LA.

[Vaz]

If it doesn't have a printed level adjustment it isn't suitable for Players
This is just incorrect.

[Zweisteine]

If it doesn't have a printed level adjustment it isn't suitable for Players

Unseelie Fey is not meant for a Player Character.

Ah, but you can. You can play an Unseelie Fey Gnome, and the template can then be reverse-applied (bad terminology, sorry) to any other playable race. And even if it wasn't mean tot be for player characters, what if an Unseelie Fey wants to go adventuring? Only non-intelligent things can't be played, with a few careful rulings.

I would generally say that a template without listed level adjustment would use the CR adjustment as the level adjustment, which makes some sense. However, in the case of Unseelie Fey (and Paragon), the example creature has a listed LA, which allows for extrapolation of the template's LA (though Unseelie Fey should have the +1 in it's CR as LA).



Also, Maginomicon, rolling for wings is not a built-in balancing mechanic, if only because the template is still way to good, even without the wings (maybe). Also, it is generally unfair to force players to randomly determine their racial features.
Think of it this way: The player is choosing someone in the D&D world to play as, and they choose the one that fits their interest the most. The unseelie fey born without wings is not the one that grew up to become an adventurer.


I think the fix is to give the template a +1 LA (and allow for choosing of vision type). That may still seem a bit low, but compared to Half-Fey, it's too weak to warrant a +2 LA.

[OldTrees1]

Also, Maginomicon, rolling for wings is not a built-in balancing mechanic, if only because the template is still way to good, even without the wings (maybe).


Also, it is generally unfair to force players to randomly determine their racial features.

A balance mechanic is any mechanic that can be used and was intended to be used to help balance existing mechanics. So yes the rolling was/is a balance mechanic despite not being sufficient to balance the entire template.


I would remind you that ability scores are rolled under default rules as intended. So randomly determining some features is a D&D legacy.

[eggynack]

In PO, a reasonable GM would look at this template, see that it's powerful, notice that it has a built-in balancing mechanic of having to roll to determine the wings, and use that.
That seems somewhat untrue, given that the race explicitly grants the choice to the player if they desire it. You're arguing that any reasonable DM would institute this houserule, and that just seems unreasonable. This doesn't even really make much sense as a balancing factor, because then you're just telling the player that they have a 50% chance of being overpowered. Assigning something you consider broken to chance doesn't make much sense to me. It's like you're saying, "if you roll between 50 and 75, then you get to be a beholder mage. If you roll between 76 and 100, then you get to be an illithid savant. If you roll between 1 and 49, truenamer levels." If you think this thing is broken, and it likely is, then just don't play with it.

[123456789blaaa]

By that argument, the paragon creature template in the ELH is also LA +0 and fair game for optimization. Can't wait to start adding that one to all my builds!

There are tons of horribly dumb and broken things in the RAW though. Doesn't mean an optimizer will use them.


You're really pinning your hopes on an example character from a 3.0 source? Really?

The ELH does give explicit ECL's for a lot of the monsters on page 156 though.